Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

THE GAMBIA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of The Gambia and assuring Me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave Me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWQUAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Deliveries

Mr. Tilney: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that one Liverpool firm posted on 6th June, recorded delivery number 693636, im-

portant documents due in Kettering by 3 p.m. on 8th June and that these were not delivered till Friday 9th June, thereby causing the firm a loss of several hundreds of pounds; and whether he will arrange for the public to be able to insure against losses due wholly to Post Office delays, or arrange to issue a stamp which guarantees delivery within 48 hours.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman about the delay to this letter, expressing his regret. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No".

Mr. Tilney: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that many firms up and down the country, fearing that their letters may be in the 6 per cent. which may not be delivered the next day, are having to send their own couriers? It is as if we were in the days before Rowland Hill. Will he not allow private enterprise postal companies to compete or create some form of insurance company, on which the Post Office might make a profit?

Mr. Slater: We deliver nearly 94 per cent. of fully-paid letters the next weekday after posting. Nevertheless, bearing mind all the hazards of transit, it would be impossible to guarantee service even if it were run by private enterprise.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that if every firm had a record of 94 per cent. success this country would not be in the economic position in which it often finds itself? Is he aware that many hon. Friends on this side of the House deplore this vendetta which is being conducted against the Post Office?

Mr. Bryan: Does not this question tell a very deplorable story? Is not the whole purpose of recorded delivery—apart from recording—that it should be famous for its utter reliability? To what extent does the record show that the recorded service in in fact more reliable than ordinary first-class mail?

Mr. Slater: One point which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends fail to recognise is that we carry about 35 million letters a day. The Question asks about compensation for losses. To accept


liability for the consequences of any mistreatment of mail would be quite impracticable.

Mr. Tilney: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the earliest possible occasion on the Adjournment.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Postmaster-General what is the average daily delivery of letters in the county of Midlothian; and what complaints about delivery have been made to him during the last six months.

Mr. Joseph Slater: About 55,000 letters a day and nine complaints in six months.

Mr. Eadie: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to tell me the nature of the nine complaints and precisely what was involved?

Mr. Slater: All nine were about delivery. Eight were about delays to letters, while the other was about a delivery being made later than the proper time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate service rendered by his Department to the Labour Party Press and Publicity Department, and of the complaints in respect of this made by that body, details of which have been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take to improve deliveries of postal matter in London in the light of these complaints.

Mr. Berry: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will publish figures to show the extent to which postal deliveries have become slower during the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I am always concerned about failures to give a proper postal service, whether it is to Labour Party Headquarters or anyone else, and we are doing everything within our power to improve deliveries both in London and elsewhere. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) suggests, the service has improved over the past two years. Then, 91 per cent. of fully paid letters were delivered on the day of posting or on the next

working day. Today the figure is 94 per cent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party Press and Publicity Department recently informed its customers that recent experience showed that letters posted on a Friday did not arrive until the Monday and that it advised them to send private messengers to collect the mail? In the light of such evidence—and from such a source—should not the Post Office do something to improve its service for all the rest of us in the country?

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that The Times congratulated the Labour Party on its honesty in this matter. I inquired of Transport House about the use of the word "recent" in this context, and I was told that it was based on experience in 1956.

Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent him a number of letters on this subject in recent months? While it is important to look ahead to the future, is it not equally important to concentrate on giving a much better impression and better service to the public now?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. London is a difficult case, particularly in view of the labour shortage. We have greater labour problems in London than elsewhere. Further, the mail piles up on Friday, mainly because too many people post their letters at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. on Fridays and expect them to be delivered the following morning.

Mr. William Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the business interests represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite answered their letters as efficiently as the Post Office delivers them, this country would be a great deal better off?

Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that I wrote a letter to him a short time ago about the Conservative Publicity Department having a similar experience to that mentioned in the main Question?

Mr. Short: I am not sure that it reached me—[Laughter.]—but I will look into the matter.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of serious and


repeated breakdowns in the postal services in Westmorland; and whether he will instigate a special inquiry into these breakdowns which his Department have not so far been able to solve.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Although on occasions there is delay to some mail because of the late running of mail trains, there have been neither serious nor repeated breakdowns of the postal services in Westmorland.

Mr. Jopling: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that I have written letters to him quite frequently over the past year about these breakdowns, which are extremely serious and have given rise to loss of orders and, particularly, to loss of export orders? Does he not realise that this is quite intolerable, and will he not do what I have asked him in the Question, which is to set up a special inquiry, as he has been quite incapable of dealing with the matter already?

Mr. Slater: I can appreciate the hon. Member's feelings. I am aware of the letters he has written to the Department in regard to this matter, and we have made inquiries. I must point out that no matter what the part of the country, it is inevitable in the transit of mail, because of its volume, the late running of trains and human failings, that a small proportion of the mail will suffer delay. We do not run away from that fact. That is the position.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Postmaster-General why letters posted in the House of Comomns on Friday do not reach their destination until Monday; and if this practice is happening to other similar postal services throughout the country.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Most letters posted in the House of Commons on Fridays are delivered the following day. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any particular cases of delay I will gladly look into them.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that under the Conservative Government letters posted on Friday morning were delivered in the London area on Friday afternoon? Does he realise that the technical reasons for this delay is that letter sorting offices in the London

area close on Friday afternoon and it is not that we have any vendetta against Post Office workers?

Mr. Slater: I do not know if the position was as the hon. Member has quoted under the Conservatives but Friday is usually the heaviest posting day of the week and, in most places, there is only one delivery on Saturdays. These factors and others tend to make the service not so good as at other times.

Mr. Moyle: Would my hon. Friend agree that the problem would be solved if the second Saturday delivery were reinstituted?

Mr. Slater: No, I do not think so. We have taken a consensus in regard to the position and we are satisfied that the line we have adopted is the right one.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Are not the many cases quoted just further examples of the failure of nationalisation?

Mr. Slater: The new proposals which have been made regarding the administration of the postal service will be a form of denationalisation.

Mr. Wall: asked the Postmaster-General why it takes two days or more for letters and postcards to reach Beverley from York, a distance of some 30 miles.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Letters and postcards posted in York should connect with the first delivery at Beverley the next day and this standard of service is generally being given.

Mr. Wall: Is not the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that this is not always the case? Will he investigate the evidence I have presented? Is it not fair comment to say that as charges rise the services decline?

Mr. Slater: No; that does not necessarily follow. Isolated cases of delay occur. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details, I will look into the matter.

Telecommunications Equipment (Manufacture)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what percentage of telecommunications equipment used by the Post Office in 1966, 1965, and 1963


was actually manufactured in Post Office establishments;

(2) what percentage of the output of the British telecommunications industry the Post Office purchased in 1966, 1965 and 1963; and what was the cost.

Mr. Doig: asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to set up a factory in Dundee for the manufacture of telecommunications equipment, in view of he delay in supplies of such equipment to the Post Office by existing suppliers.

Mr. Edward Short: The manufacture of telecommunications equipment in Post Office establishments, excluding the cost of component parts purchased from industry, has averaged less than one per cent. of the total equipment purchases over the last few years. Precise figures for the output of the British telecommunications industry are not available, but, as regards the manufacturers who comprise the bulk of the industry, the percentage of their total output purchased by the Post Office for the three years in question has been 55, 52 and 50 respectively, at costs of £73 million, £55 million and £44 million.
I have at present no plans to open new factories for the manufacture of telecommunications equipment by the Post Office.

Mr. Brown: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that, in view of the deplorable figures he has quoted, the time is long overdue when the Post Office should itself be manufacturing much more of the equipment it requires? Does he not now see the opportunity for opening State-owned factories in the development areas?

Mr. Short: As my hon. Friend knows—I told him in reply to a previous Question, and we stated it in the White Paper—in the Corporation Bill, which will come before the House in the next Session of Parliament, we will ask Parliament for power to manufacture anything required by the Post Office.

Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the General Secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union has said that the extension of the telephone system is being held up solely because of the failure of private manufacturers to provide sufficient telephone exchange equip-

ment to his Department? As a result, will my right hon. Friend again seriously consider using the powers he will have under the new Act to start a factory in Dundee or some other area?

Mr. Short: I know Mr. Smith's view very well, and, of course, he is absolutely right. The lack of capacity in the industry is holding up the growth of the system but, to be fair to those in the industry, they lack capacity now because the forecasting of telecommunications needs when the party opposite was in power was inadequate.

Mr. Bryan: Does the Postmaster-General intend, as a matter of broad policy, to use the powers proposed in the White Paper to increase really substantially manufacture by the Post Office?

Mr. Short: That will not be a matter for me: it will be a matter for the Board, when it is set up.

Mobile Postal Service

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will provide a mobile postal service in areas which qualify under his criteria for sub-post offices, which he is unable to provide due to lack of suitable available accommodation.

Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. This would not be a satisfactory way to provide counter services.

Mr. Dempsey: is my hon. Friend aware that some business proprietors are giving up sub-post offices and, as there are no alternative business means of providing the service, whole housing areas have been bereft of these services? Would it not be a convenience to bankers and others if some mobile units were put into operation?

Mr. Slater: Our three mobile services are designed to provide a limited service at, for example, agricultural shows and similar events, but to give them a further liability would not be in the interests of the Post Office service.

Drive-in Post Offices

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for developing drive-in post offices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Joseph Slater: There is a drive-in post office in Leicester and a suite of self-service machines for motorists in Luton, but we have no plans for extending this type of service.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to extend 24-hour self-service facilities? Does he not feel that drive-in arrangements have a contribution to make in this direction?

Mr. Slater: These installations are expensive in relation to the service they provide and we would find it difficult to justify the provision of such facilities.

Pre-stamped Envelopes

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to publicise the availability at post offices of envelopes franked with fourpenny stamps, at the same time reducing the charge per franked envelope to 4d., in order to reduce the time spent on buying and sticking on stamps.

Mr. Edward Short: I shall be considering more publicity for the stamped envelopes sold at Post Offices when they are changed to our preferred sizes at the end of this year. I certainly cannot reduce the charge to 4d. since this would amount to giving the envelopes away free.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Postmaster-General aware that one of the principal difficulties in introducing electronic letter-sorting equipment is the varying sizes of envelopes, hence the Post Office preferred campaign? If the Post Office produced their own standard envelopes at 4d., would not this difficulty be overcome?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend has answered the question himself. The reason why we are introducing P.O.P. envelopes is to facilitate sorting.

Recorded Deliveries (Cost)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Postmaster-General by what percentage his Department has increased the price for sending a letter by recorded delivery; and on what date the most recent change was made.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The price was increased by 50 per cent. (from 6d. to 9d.) on 3rd October, 1966. This is the only increase since the service was introduced in 1961.

Mr. King: At a time when others who sell goods or services are being urged to keep prices constant, is not a 50 per cent. increase a quite deplorable example to set?

Mr. Slater: I do not think so, in regard to this particular service. [Laughter.] It must be borne in mind by hon. Members who jeer at the action we have taken that without an increase this service would have been running at a loss in the current financial year.

Telecommunications Programme (Finance)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Postmaster-General if he will commission a study to determine the practicability of financing the proposed telecommunications programme from the private capital market.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a very large number of people who believe that the telecommunication activities of the Post Office are pre-eminently suitable for free enterprise? Would he not, therefore, commission the study I have suggested as a very useful preliminary move in developing such a debate?

Mr. Short: This is a point that ought to be looked at; I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may have seen an article by Sir Ronald Edwards in the current Lloyds Bank Review. Various replies are possible to this article, but I think that it is a matter which can be looked at in the context of the financing of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Bryan: Do we take it from that reply that there is to be a serious investigation into this possibility?

Mr. Short: No. All I am saying is that this is the kind of question which should be looked at in the context of the long-term financing of the nationalised industries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Credit Cards (Ireland)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will seek to make arrangements with the Government of the Republic of Ireland for credit cards issued by him to be accepted for calls made from


Ireland to a British telephone number, aid to accept reverse charge calls made horn Ireland to Great Britain.

Mr. Joseph Slater: My right hon. Friend bas already done so; but the Government of the Irish Republic have not so far been able to agree.

Mr. Tilney: Surely it would be possible to put into action unilaterally in this country the proposals to accept reverse charge calls?

Mr. Slater: Yes. The Irish Republic were approached on both counts in October, 1965, and they have been asked for a decision on a number of occasions since then, but without success. The most recent reminder was on 6th July, 1967. This matter is under consideration.

Dialling Errors (Bristol)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Postmaster-General what is the average number of times daily a telephone subscriber is called to the telephone in the Bristol area to find that the caller has the wrong number; and whether this number is higher than the national average.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Once in three months, on average. This is less than the national figure.

Mr. Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the number of mis-phone calls through errors of dialling is still too high? The dialling system is even more complex—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will he make available propaganda and information courses to enable people to understand the system?

Mr. Slater: In response to the supplementary question and the constituency interest my hon. Friend has, I can do no better than to say that there have been seven complaints from the Avonmouth subscribers. Three were due to plant faults, one was a dialling mistake and three were due to subscribers' faults.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Paul Bryan.

Mr. Ellis: Is it in order to give the substance of the Answer the second time round and give an hon. Member no chance to come back to it?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite in order. Mr. Paul Bryan.

Mr. Bryan: If this is less than the national average, may we know what the national average is?

Mr. Slater: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Local Broadcasting Councils

Dr. Winstanley: asked the Postmaster-General by what method the members of the local broadcasting councils will be appointed; what steps will be taken to ensure a balance of political opinion within the councils and to safeguard the interests of minority groups; and to whom the councils will be responsible.

Mr. Edward Short: I shall, after consultation with the B.E.C., appoint as members of the councils people selected from those now being recommended to me by a wide range of local organisations and by individuals in the localities to be served by the stations. Members will be appointed for the individual contributions they can make to their council's task of interpreting and representing to the station manager the various needs, aspirations and interests of all sections of the community. They will be responsible to local opinion as a whole for this purpose.

Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in some of these districts among minority groups, such as the Labour and Conservative Parties, about whether their interests will be effectively protected?

Mr. Short: I have set my face firmly against representing the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or any other specific group. All that I want is bright, intelligent people who can produce good radio.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there may be some danger of these councils being dominated by local authorities which are putting up the money?

Mr. Short: It is being made perfectly clear to local councils that if they are going to make contributions that does not entitle them to any given number of representatives; indeed, to any representation at all.

Mr. Bryan: Will organisations, whatever they may be, which subscribe money to these stations be debarred from representation on these councils? Will they be able to influence programmes?

Mr. Short: They will not be debarred, but the fact that they subscribe money will not necessarily entitle them to representation.

Television Transmissions (Satellites)

Mr. Marten: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now consider a British commercial satellite for television transmissions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: We do not at present see sufficient reason to expend the resources necessary for a British project of this nature.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question was directed not to the present but to the future? In view of the enormous commercial advantages that could accrue to this country in terms of communications, will not the Government come down to earth on this issue of satellites and get on with the job of producing commercial satellites for communications and television?

Mr. Short: Whether the hon. Gentleman's Question was directed to the present or the future, it contains the word "now", and I answered it accordingly. He knows that the Post Office is contributing heavily to the global satellite system and that these satellites are being used for telecommunications.

Independent Television Authority (Licences)

Mr. Rowland: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to require the Independent Television Authority to publish the proposals presented to the Authority by successful applicants for television licences, and resumes of subsequent evidence secured from such applicants when presenting their applications to the Authority.

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will introduce legislation to compel the Independent Television Authority to publish its

reasons for refusing to renew, renewing, granting, or withholding a licence;

(2) if he will introduce legislation to compel the Independent Television Authority to hold formal hearings before refusing to renew, renewing, granting or withholding a licence; and to publish afterwards the proceedings at those hearings.

Mr. Edward Short: I would refer my hon. Friends to my speech in the debate of 28th June. Given the present system which Parliament has charged the I.T.A. to administer, I think it better that it should be left as free as it would wish from obligations which might inhibit it in choosing the companies it considers will produce the best service of television.

Mr. Rowland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he did not deal with these points in the speech to which he referred? While agreeing that there is much to be said for these hearings being in private, may I ask him whether it would not be desirable, in terms of the promises of greater regional identification and higher artistic and cultural standards made by successful applicants, that these promises should be made known to the public so that they may judge the performance of these successful applicants in years to come? Should not people in the Midlands know what A.T.V. promised about the closer identification of the Midlands in programmes and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Gentleman has a prescriptive right to ask long supplementaries.

Mr. Short: The fact that a given company gets a contract indicates that it made a better bid than anyone else; and it must live up to it. All the matters mentioned in these Questions must be looked at when we start looking at the whole broadcasting system.

Mr. Boston: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend said in the debate to which he referred, may I ask him to appreciate that there is considerable disquiet about the apparently arbitrary way in which the I.T.A. made its decision about T.W.W.? Is it not extraordinary that 10 years' work could be thrown over on the basis of a couple of applications


and a couple of 40-minute interviews? Does not the Postmaster-General feel that he Chairman of I.T.A. should exert rather less secrecy in these matters?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. We must be fair to I.T.A. in these matters. Without saying whether or not one supports the present system, the fact remains that Parliament created the system and that I.T.A. must work it.

Mr. Bryan: While I see the difficulty of publishing résumes of the oral evidence given to the I.T.A., could not the right hon. Gentleman, without legislation, simply ask I.T.A. now to publish the applications of the successful companies?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I do not think that I would have any right to do that. I have no doubt that Lord Hill will read these Questions and Answers. I feel that we should not inhibit the I.T.A. from selecting the company which it believes can produce the best television; and that is the object of the whole exercise.

Mr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that these Questions are of great interest to us in Bristol, where we are subject to a violent change in the regime? Is he aware that some of us are nervous because Bristol is a very English city and can come under too much Welsh cultural domination? What has my right hon. Friend to say on this issue?

Mr. Short: The possibility of a change when contracts are reallocated is inherent in the system. Until the system is changed, the possibility of a company being changed at the end of the period remains.

Mr. Ellis: Would my right hon. Friend consider having some arrangement whereby, perhaps halfway through the licensing period, there was a public inquiry so that ordinary people could make their views known before momentous decisions of this kind are taken?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. So much is involved in mounting a programme of this kind that if a contract is given for five years, that contract should run for five years.

Local Radio Stations

Mr. Rowland: asked the Postmaster-General how many local radio stations, and where, have now been authorised and when they are expected to start broadcasting.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Postmaster-General why no local radio station has been established in East Anglia.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to encourage setting up a local radio for the Greater Bristol area.

Mr. Edward Short: I have authorised the B.B.C. to set up stations at Brighton, Durham, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Merseyside, Nottingham, Sheffield and Stoke-on-Trent. The Manchester City Council has, however, decided to withdraw its support for a station there. Local support for a station in East Anglia was not sufficient to justify my authorising a station there to the exclusion of one of the places chosen. The stations at Leicester, Merseyside and Sheffield are expected to start broadcasting in November or early December: those at Brighton, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent by the end of March. The stations at Durham and Leeds are expected to start by the end of May. This experiment is being conducted with a view to the establishment of a more general and permanent service; but it will be necessary to see how it goes before further stations are authorised.

Mr. Rowland: While we all wish these stations well, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of finding nine local authorities willing to cooperate clearly indicates the insuperable difficulty of finding 70 or 80 local authorities for a subsequent phase of local broadcasting? Would he reconsider in the long term the financing of these stations with a view to the possibility of using licence fee revenue?

Mr. Short: To take my hon. Friend's second point first, one of our objects is to see whether a truly communal station may be financed in this way. Frankly, I do not know whether or not it can be—that is why we are having this experiment. With regard to my hon. Friend's first point about difficulty in getting more


stations, the difficulty was to select them. Actually, we had a very large number of applicants.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the reason why it has not been possible to establish a station in East Anglia is that it cannot be afforded out of rate revenue? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only practicable way to have local radio there is to have a commercial radio station? Will he look at it again, in order to help those who cannot afford it owing to the rate burden?

Mr. Short: That is the most utter nonsense because the money comes out of the same pockets; whether it is licence fees or the profit on a packet of "Daz", the same people have to pay for it. I am, of course, quite aware of the interests of hon. Members opposite in commercial radio—[Interruption.] I said the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite in commercial radio. I know their interest in that, of course, because there is a lot of money to be made out of it—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I object to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is it right that the Postmaster-General should by innuendo cast the aspersion on an hon. Member that he wishes to make money out of commercial radio?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was casting an aspersion on the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). He can cast aspersions unfortunately, on the whole of the other side.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the word "interest" a technical meaning in this House very different from that applied to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the word was "interest"—not "interests".

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You have said that the right hon. Gentleman is able to cast aspersions on the whole of the other side. I would point out that I have never taken part in commercial television, I have no interest in it whatsoever, and I

object to the slur of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not waste time. I can understand the hon. and learned Member's objection. It must have been the objection felt by Members of the Conservative Party when the late Winston Churchill cast reflections on the whole of the party.

Mr. Dobson: Will my right hon. Friend advise me, in relation to Question No. 38, whether or not it is the practice of his Department to make a visit to the areas where local radio stations are possible to discuss the pros and cons in relation to broadcasting as a whole? Further, is it or is it not the fact that it is possible for any large potential user so to destroy confidence in the system that no radio station is, in fact, set up? Is not my right hon. Friend regretting the fact that there is no radio station for Bristol?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I regret that there is no station in Bristol. It is, of course, possible for one very active potential user to defeat the whole thing, and up and down the country we find that the activities of the Local Radio Association and also of chambers of commerce have prevented applications coming in.

Sir R. Cary: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about withdrawal of the Manchester Corporation, is the name of this city now taken out of the list he read out?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I said that I had authorised a station there. All I said was that the city corporation had withdrawn its support, but I see from the Press that councils round about are interested. I am told that the B.B.C. have not yet reached any decision about the station yet.

Mr. Berry: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a report on the financial arrangements for the local experimental sound radio stations.

Mr. Edward Short: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 17th March to the hon. Member.—[Vol. 743. c. 167–8.]

Mr. Berry: Is the Postmaster-General aware that he has evaded giving this answer over several months now? Is it not time that he referred back to his White Paper, in which he said that chambers of commerce and other bodies would help in the financing of these stations? Unless we have this information before we rise for the Recess, we can only presume that the ratepayers in these areas will have to find the money.

Mr. Short: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman does his best to discredit this experiment. He has done this ever since the beginning; so have his hon. Friends. What the hon. Gentleman is asking me for is the result of the experiment. How could I give the result of the experiment before it takes place?

Mr. Orme: What is my right hon. Friend doing to overcome the opposition in Manchester of the Conservative Council to his proposals to introduce a local radio station?

Mr. Short: This is really a matter for the B.B C., but I hope that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will do a great deal to overcome this opposition.

B.B.C. Play (Postponement)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Postmaster-General why he instructed the British Broadcasting Corporation to postpone the showing of the television play depicting the trial of the Soviet writers Sinyavsky and Daniel.

Mr. Edward Short: No such instruction has been given to the B.B.C.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Postmaster-General aware, nevertheless, that the B. B.C. has received approaches from Soviet sources which have caused the Corporation to alter its programmes? In view of the very grave implications of this form of censorship, will he take steps to see that the B.B.C. do not do this sort of thing again?

Mr. Short: I think that all that happened here was that the Russian Government made known to the Foreign Office its view of the Sinyavsky and Daniel programme. The Foreign Office passed it on to the B.B.C. without any comment of any kind. I carried out a very careful check indeed, and no

Government Department exerted any pressure whatsoever on the B.B.C.

Mr. Biffen: None the less, would not the Postmaster-General agree that the B.B.C. showed a remarkable sensitivity to these representations from the Russian authorities which contrast very sharply to the barbaric treatment that the Russians are according Gerald Brooke?

Mr. Short: I really do not see what the tragic case of Mr. Brooke has to do with it. But hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. Week by week they complain of the insensitivity of the B.B.C. I repeat, they cannot have it both ways.

Pirate Radio Stations

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General how many pirate radio stations are still operating; and if he is satisfied with the operation of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to bring into operation the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act.

Mr. Edward Short: There are nine pirate broadcasting stations operating; eight of them are off the United Kingdom. The Bill is awaiting the Royal Assent. It is hoped to bring it into force on 15th August.

Mr. Mills: Has the Postmaster-General seen reports that Radio Caroline, Radio London and three or four other pirate radio stations are setting up facilities abroad, collecting advertising abroad and preparing to operate from abroad, as we warned that they would when the Bill was going through the House? What plans has he to deal with this type of situation?

Mr. Short: Of course I have seen the reports, and I know of the encouragement given by hon. Members opposite. After 15th August, if the Order is made, on that date the law will come into force, and anyone who renders assistance to these


stations will be guilty of a criminal offence.

Mr. William Price: Can my right hon. Friend say how quickly he expects the Act will silence these pirate, radio stations?

Mr. Short: This depends on our colleagues abroad. They have been cooperating and I think the only one which has not done so is Holland.

Mr. Channon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is making his task of doing away with the pirates infinitely more difficult by bringing in the Order by 15th August before he has the new B.B.C. Radio 247 in operation?

Mr. Short: One difficulty has been the support given by the hon. Member and many of his hon. Friends to pirate stations.

Mr. Bryan: Could we have a straight answer to that last question?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. That is the answer to the question.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Chairman)

Mr. Statton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General if he will announce the name of the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Edward Short: An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Mills: Does the Postmaster-General recognise the importance of having a national figure who has not been linked in the past nor is at present with any political party? Would he consider redefining the powers of the Chairman of Governors of the B.B.C. so that he has greater control in practice as well as in theory over the Director General and the staff?

Mr. Short: The last Chairman of I.T.A. was an ex-Tory Cabinet Minister who disappeared in the "Night of the Long Knives". I realise that this is a very important point, and the hon. Member can be assured that we shall get the right man for the job.

B.B.C. Programmes (Consultations)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General what guidance has been given to the British Broadcasting Cor-

poration about programmes that might cause difficulty to Her Majesty's Government in their dealings with other countries.

Mr. Edward Short: So as to enable the B.B.C. to plan and prepare its programmes in the External Services in the national interest, Clause 14(5) of the Corporation's Licence and Agreement requires it to consult the overseas Departments. This consultation is a continuing process.

Mr. Gilmour: As the B.B.C. was prevented from broadcasting Svetlana Stalin's letter to Pasternak because of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Russia, will not the Postmaster-General agree that this sort of governmental pressure is highly undesirable upon a supposedly independent organisation?

Mr. Short: No; the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this. The reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) applies to this Question as well. The B.B.C. was made aware of a comment made by the Russian Government to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was in Moscow, but no pressure was put on the B.B.C.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite recently the Chief Whip, otherwise known as the Patronage Secretary, complained to the producers of the B.B.C. programme "The World at One", not only about the nature of the programme, which apparently he did not like, but also about those who participated in the programme, namely, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen? Does not my right hon. Friend think this is an unwarrantable intrusion?

Mr. Short: The Question deals with external services. The Clause I quoted from the Licence and Agreement deals with external services as well.

Radio 247

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General on what date it is proposed to start the new British Broadcasting Corporation programme, Radio 247.

Mr. Edward Short: As I told the House on 29th June, the B.B.C.'s new music programme will start on 30th September.

Mr. Channon: Does not this prove what hon. Members on this side have been saying for a long time? Would it not be much better to accelerate the start of this programme in order that, when the pirates do go out of business, if they do, there will be a decent alternative to replace them?

Mr. Short: It proves how enterprising the Government have been in doing something about it.

Broadcasting Hours

Mr. Bryan: asked the Postmaster-General if he will authorise an increase in the hours of television broadcasting.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. I cannot add to the statement in the White Paper on Broadcasting, which stated that the Government did not consider that any general increase in broadcasting hours would be justified for the present.

Mr. Bryan: Now that the B.B.C. has been given a second channel, a monopoly of colour, and 80 showing hours on the two channels, as against 50 for I.T.A., it is not time that the public was allowed to have this extra broadcasting which is perfectly easily available, which the I.T.A. is perfectly willing to supply, and which would cost nothing to those who wish to use it?

Mr. Short: We have the same old fallacy about its costing nothing. Of course it costs something. The question is one of priorities. In the past two months we have undertaken the two biggest technical changes ever made in television in this country since it started, in the change-over to U.H.F. and colour. The B.B.C. has not a monopoly. It is being given to all channels. It is a case of putting first things first. I think we are right to put this first.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (SPEECH)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister without Portfolio at Madingley Hall, Cambridge, on 18th June, on the social services, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister without Portfolio, on the social services, at Madingley Hall on 18th June, represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend made no statement of Government policy. He was discussing possible developments in the social services over the next 20 years.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: After the 1,001 nights—the 1,001 days and nights—of story-telling, has not the Prime Minister now finally abandoned Socialism by being associated with his right hon. Friend's speech in favour of a selective Welfare State? Does that mean that the Prime Minister will now adopt the Tory policy in future?

The Prime Minister: The reference to 1,001 knights is a reference to the patronage policy of the Tory Government, not of this Government. So far as the policy question is concerned, my right hon. Friend was speaking at a seminar having a long look at the social services, and his main theme related to the likelihood of a move to wage-related pensions and wage-related benefits generally. There was certainly no retreat from any principle in the matter of social security that this side of the House holds.

Mr. Montgomery: Is the Prime Minister aware that this speech was in flat contradiction to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in the House last Friday? Is this another case of a split in the party opposite? Or is it another case of this Government trying to face both ways at the same time?

The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend was saying, obviously as a long-term development, taking up, indeed, a point which has been made several times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that when it is possible to have more fully developed computer services, it may be possible to have, as was originally proposed by Lady Rhys-Williams many years ago, the position of each individual, whether on a net tax liability or a net social security benefit position, on a single basis. This is what my right hon. Friend


was talking about. There was certainly no suggestion of extending means testing in the social services.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend assure the majority of hon. Members on this side that when the Minister without Portfolio spoke of making our social services selective he was at least excluding the National Health Service, since illness is neither a luxury nor a necessity and does not confine itself to particular income groups?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was not dealing at all in this seminar with the National Health Service. He was dealing with the social services as properly understood, and he was not proposing in them, still less in the National Health Service, any question of extending the means testing principle.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Lord President of the Council made at Coventry on 4th June 1967, on the prices and incomes standstill represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir T. Beamish: Well, is not that peculiar? Is it really Government policy that even a restoration of the growth rate and improved social services cannot be achieved without a massive cut-back in defence—massive, repeat massive?

The Prime Minister: We have always said, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have a chance of studying this, I hope, next week, that we cannot achieve economic viability and stability on the scale we want, still less the social service result, unless we cut our defence costs to the resources available.

Mr. Sandys: Is not this a rare and refreshing example of a Minister blurting out the unvarnished truth?

The Prime Minister: I am very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's support for what my right hon. Friend said about defence. I shall look forward to his

opposition speech below the Gangway supporting the cuts in defence which will be announced.

RHODESIA

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the talks between the illegal Rhodesia régime and Lord Alport.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on Tuesday last.—[Vol. 750, c. 415.]

Mr. Ashley: As the prerequisite to any conceivable settlement is that it is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, would my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not accept the charade of an indaba of chiefs but that all black Africans, including those in detention, will be required to give their consent before any settlement is agreed to?

The Prime Minister: The question of acceptability to the people of Rhodesia as a whole has long been one of the principles insisted upon by both the previous and the present Government. The idea of an indaba purporting to speak for the African population as a whole was very firmly rejected by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—indeed by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on the last day that he held office. That has been the continuing position of this Government.

Mr. Heath: When he last answered Questions on this subject, the Prime Minister said that after Lord Alport returned he would make a statement saying what the Government intended to do about it. Would he give consideration to Lord Alport making a dispatch after his return setting out his conclusions, even if he could not set out the sources of his information, so that Parliament and the country could judge what his conclusions were and what action should be taken?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly discuss this with Lord Alport when he comes back. I do not know in what form his report will be made, but the House will be given very full information about his visit and its outcome in whatever form it may be given.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the scandalous and utterly intransigent attacks made on Lord Alport by Mr. Smith's colleagues, will the Prime Minister consider whether the time has not now come to ask the United Nations to apply the full sanctions of Article 41, and will he remember that half-measures rarely succeed?

The Prime Minister: The quality of the attacks made on Lord Alport by certain of the extremist members of the regime will not be a surprise to hon. Members. They have no significance whatsoever in terms of the responsibilties which Her Majesty's Government have in the matter. The question of future United Nations action must be a matter for the United Nations.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that N.I.B.M.A.R., which lies at the heart of the negotiations, is the most massive and monumental stumbling block since the Pharaohs tripped over the Pyramids, and that it shares with those edifices the ability to bury reputations? It is asffitial—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The House should listen to metaphors more patiently.

The Prime Minister: I thought that the Pharaohs were buried in the Pyramids. As for N.I.B.M.A.R., Mr. Smith anti his colleagues had ample notice from the Commonwealth Conference afterwards that, as a result of a very hard struggle on our part, we had secured acquiescence by the Commonwealth to his having another chance to reach agreement. We gave him that chance. N.I.B.M.A.R. was not then in question. He could have accepted the "Tiger" proposals—I think he wanted to—but he was not allowed to, and his refusal was backed up by right hon. Gentlemen opposide in the Lobby.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the date of the opening of formal negotiations for Great Britain entering the Common Market.

Mr. Orme: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with re-

gard to the opening of formal negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government hope that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Western European Union on 4th July will enable negotiations to open as soon as the opinion of the Commission has been given.

Mr. Hamling: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement made by the Foreign Secretary has the overwhelming support of the majority of Europeans, including the majority of Frenchmen?

The Prime Minister: I think it had a very good response at the W.E.U. meeting and generally in the European Press, and it carried a great deal of acceptance on the Continent as well as in this country.

Mr. Orme: After the statement by the French Foreign Secretary to the Council of Ministers particularly opposing Britain's entry because of her role in sterling and the agricultural policy, because of the flat rejection on those two points, is it not time to bring our representatives home and work out an alternative policy to the Market?

The Prime Minister: Our representatives are not in fact there. The decision of the Council of Ministers was to refer this matter to the Commission. That is appropriate under the Treaty of Rome. There has been no flat rejection by the French Foreign Minister or anyone else. There has been no flat rejection and the matter is proceeding through the Commission. In the speech of M. Couve de Murville there were a number of fallacious statements. Those are matters which can be dealt with as time goes by. Indeed, they were dealt witty on the visit of my right hon. Friend and myself to Paris in January. We shall have to do more in that direction.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the speech of M. Von de Groeben, who said that the sincerity of those seeking to join the Community would be decided by the extent to which they were prepared to align their legislation in advance of joining the Community? Would he now undertake an


intensive study of, for instance, the value-added tax?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the legislative programme of the House can be settled on the basis of individual speeches of individual members of the Commission. We must wait and see what the report of the Commission as a whole may be. Regarding the value-added tax, I made it clear in the debate on the Common Market that we are studying intensively the problems raised by the fiscal harmonisation requirements of the Common Market.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Prime Minister has said on many occasions that he expects by Christmas to be able to form a view about whether the application will be seriously considered. If by Christmas he has not any hope that the application will he accepted, will he then set about forming an alternative to it?

The Prime Minister: I have dealt with the question of alternatives many times and I do not propose to go over the same ground. We hope that we shall be in a position by the latter part of the year to know where we stand on the general question of negotiations. If not, we shall have to consider our position then. However, I cannot answer hypothetical questions now.

ANGLO-FRENCH VARIABLE GEOMETRY AIRCRAFT

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his talks on 19th and 20th June with General de Gaulle about the prospects for technological cooperation, he discussed co-operation over the joint manufacture of aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reports I have already given the House on these discussions which were, of course, confidential.

Mr. Marten: Bearing in mind that when the Prime Minister saw General de Gaulle it was obvious to all, except perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence, that the French were going to cancel the AFVG, is it not almost treating the aircraft industry with complete indifference not to have discussed this fully and frankly with General de Gaulle?

The Prime Minister: There was no question of it being clear to everyone except my right hon. Friend. I discussed this matter with President de Gaulle, as I made clear in answer to a supplementary question last week, and we both agreed that the matter should be further discussed between my right hon. Friend and M. Messmer. It was after those discussions that my right hon. Friend was in a position to say something to the House and the industry.

Mr. Powell: Did the President, however, intimate to the Prime Minister at that time that it would be difficult for France to proceed with the variable geometry project?

The Prime Minister: I have already answered that. He indicated something of the budgetary difficulties affecting this decision, but as to the final decision this should be discussed between the two Defence Ministers.

Mr. Maxwell: Would the Prime Minister agree that the cancellation of the VG project is a serious blow to our helping Europe to bridge the technology gap? Would he further consider telling France that if she persists in making it difficult for our application to the E.E.C. to be considered, we will withdraw some of our offers of technological co-operation?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to go so far as that. The decision that the House will be debating this afternoon is a matter which will have serious effects for France as well as this country. As for the technology gap, one of the biggest problems is the extent to which French research and development is already over-dependent on American industry, research and development on a scale much greater than ours. That was why I put to General de Gaulle a proposition for more co-operation in civil technology.

PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to have the text of his speeches, in the television programme on The State of the Nation, broadcast on Wednesday, 21st June, placed in the Library.

Mr. Alison: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a copy of his


speeches made in the course of his television broadcast on 21st June to be placed in the Library.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 26th Jane, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: Did my right hon. Friend a' so read a certain speech last weekend a pout the state of the nation which completely ignored the economic burden of defence and also the balance of payments?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I am responsible for the speech made last weekend.

Mr. Alison: Does the Prime Minister re call saying in that broadcast that the pay freeze was never intended to last beyond six months? Can he repudiate de notion that the medicine will be repeated?

The Prime Minister: I said that the pay freeze, in the sense of an absolute standstill, was meant, as was announced at the time, to last for six months and six months only. A "repetition of the medicine" has already been dealt with. The House knows that this, as my right hon. Friends and I have frequently urged, was a reference to the fact that if we do not get a proper incomes policy there is grave danger to full employment. That was the point which was made. If my right hon. Friend had the misfortune to be misinterpreted last week, it was far more cruel to the Leader of the Opposition who was correctly reported.

Mr. Barber: Will the Prime Minister also consider making widely available his statement on a television programme, called "Election Forum", just before the election, when he expressed opposition to the statutory control of wages?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It would be a very grave reflection on the right hon. Gentleman, who is such an assiduous student of speeches by myself—indeed, he has followed that to such a point that he has no time to work out any policy for his own party—if he had not made this point several times in the House, as he has. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I was asked whether I would make it available. I shall be very surprised if it is not in the Library. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman has a copy. If I cannot find one, perhaps he will provide it.

ALGERIA (BRITISH PILOTS AND AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information about the British pilots and aircraft that were forcibly diverted to Algeria and, in particular, whether access to these British subjects has yet been granted to the Swiss Minister.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): On 9th July an assurance was received from the Algerian Government that access to the two pilots would be allowed in the next two or three days. That assurance has not yet been honoured. In spite of the sustained efforts of the Swiss Ambassador in Algiers it has not yet been possible to see the pilots. The Ambassador is urgently seeking a further interview with the Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Meanwhile, I have sent a message to the Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Bouteflika, through Lord Caradon, in New York, asking that the Algerian Government's assurance about a visit to the pilots should be honoured at once. We are also, of course, in touch with the Governments of other countries involved.
I can assure the House that we are doing our utmost to get consular access to these two men. We are also pressing for their release.
I fully share the concern of the House in this difficult matter.

Mr. Bell: Clearly, this situation must not be allowed to continue indefinitely. While it would not be in the interests of these men for anything specific about retaliation to be said before the moment for it arrives, can the Foreign Secretary say generally whether contingency planning is now taking shape in case diplomatic representations have to be abandoned as fruitless?

Mr. Brown: As I said the other day, we are considering all the possibilities which are open to us, the various agencies and other channels which may be used. I do not want to discuss retaliation. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that there is all that possible in that respect, for reasons which will be apparent to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he considers the situation. In any


case, I am sure that we will not do the pilots any good by talking in that way. But we are most certainly using every channel at the moment open to us and considering what others we can use if none of these succeeds.

Mr. Molloy: I acknowledge that the top priority is to get these pilots back to this country, but can my right hon. Friend say whether anything emerged from his discussion with the proprietors of the company which the House ought to know, and whether some legislation may be required to prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing?

Mr. Brown: I do not think so. Mr. Gregory came to the Foreign Office and we had a full discussion with him, but I do not think that we know very much more about the exact circumstances of what happened at the time, or where it happened; and I do not think that we shall get much further with that until either the Algerians complete their inquiries and make a charge against the people concerned, or the pilots come back and we can ourselves discuss it with them.

Lord Balniel: Is not the treatment which is being meted out to these British subjects a most unhappy contrast with the very generous help which we gave to the Algerian refugees in 1963? While, of course, one must consider this very carefully, if access is not allowed, and if no charge is made, or if these British subjects are not released, should we not at least consider the Gas Council contract with the Algerian Government, a contract which has many years to run?

Mr. Brown: I still think that it is rather early to be talking about that, even though I do not seek in any way to endorse or to make excuses for what is going on. It is quite intolerable that more than a week should have gone by and that we should have not been allowed access to these men, quite apart from whether the Algerians are legally entitled to hold them during the inquiries. But it is a little early to talk in other terms yet. The message to my colleague the Algerian Foreign Minister can only just about have reached him and we ought to wait for a response.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Quite apart from the wider aspects of international relationships and humanity which arise in this

matter, is there not a time limit under Algerian law itself, as there is in most, if not all, civilised countries, within which people can be held in detention without specific charges being preferred against them?

Mr. Brown: If there is such a period, it would not be as short as a week. I am told that in many cases detention before a charge is made has occupied rather more time than that. There are many limitations on what we can do, because in many cases the conventions for the use of an international agency have not been ratified by one or other of us. I would not myself make quite as much of the fact that a charge has not yet been made if the Algerian authorities would allow us to satisfy ourselves about the situation in which these men are now held.
It is only fair to say that we are assured that they are being held, as I said last time, under house arrest, that they are comfortably quartered and well looked after. That may be true, but what I want to know is whether I can be sure that that is so. That is what I am pressing for at the moment. A little later, how long they should be made to await the charge will be another matter.

Mr. Maxwell: Has my right hon. Friend taken any steps, as I suggested last week, with the French Government to invite them to use their good offices with the Algerians, in addition to the Swiss representation?

Mr. Brown: I would much prefer not to be asked about the channels which I have used, for very obvious reasons, but my hon. Friend may take it from me that we have not neglected any channel as obvious as that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH JULY—In the morning—
Second Reading of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland, and on the Civil Defence (Casualty Services) Regulations.
In the afternoon—
Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, Motion on the Prices and Incomes Act 1966 (Commencement of Part II) Order.
TUESDAY, 18TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Threat of Further Nationalisation of Bus Operators and Road Hauliers and the Ports and Docks Industry, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Second Reading of the Road Traffic Regulation Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
Motion on the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH JULY—In the morning—
Motions on the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Orders for England and Wales and for Scotland, on the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme, on the Hill Land Improvement Schemes, for England and Wales and for Scotland, and on the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations.
Remaining stages of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].
In the afternoon—
Progress on the remaining stages of the Companies Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 20TH JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]:
Debate on Foreign Affairs, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Greenwich Hospital Bill.
FRIDAY, 21ST JULY—
Remaining stages of the Road Traffic Regulations Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
Lords Amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Bill.
Motions on the Summer Time Order and on the National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order.
Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Luxembourg) (South Africa) and (South West Africa) Orders.
Remaining stages of the Matrimonial Homes Bill [Lords], and consideration of Lords Amendments to the Civic Amenities Bill, which are Private Members' Measures.
MONDAY, 24TH JULY—The proposed business will be:
In the morning—
Remaining stages of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 3) Order.
Lords Amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.
In the afternoon—
Supply [29th Allotted Day]:
Debate on Economic Affairs, on an Opposition Motion.
At 10 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on all outstanding Votes.
It may be convenient for the House to be aware that while the date of the Adjournment for the Summer must depend on the progress of business, it is hoped that this will be possible on 28th July.
It is proposed that the House should resume on Monday, 23rd October.

Mr. Heath: On Thursday's debate on foreign affairs, would the Leader of the House agree that it would be for the convenience of the House if the debate were to concentrate on affairs other than the Middle East, upon which we have recently had a debate?
Secondly, can the Leader of the House now tell us the date of publication of the Defence White Paper?

Mr. Crossman: I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is the way that we should conduct the debate on foreign affairs.
The Defence White Paper will be published on Tuesday. Therefore, there will probably be a full week before the debate.

Mr. Winnick: May I ask my right hon. Friend a non-controversial question? Would it be possible to have a debate in the near future about a Parliamentary day starting at ten o'clock in the morning and ending at seven o'clock in the evening, and having no Recesses longer than four weeks?

Mr. Crossman: All topics are possible for debate. I have not thought of that combined topic, but we might reflect upon it during the Recess.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has deliberately put in the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order last on Tuesday so as to ensure yet another all-night sitting to his credit.

Mr. Crossman: No, that was not my intention, nor will it be the result of my putting it there.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My right hon. Friend has omitted to find time for the Employment Agencies Bill next week. May I have his assurance that he will do his best the week after?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. I am always seeking to do my best for my hon. Friend, but it gets progressively more difficult as we move towards 28th July.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the Leader of the House taken note of Motion No. 604, signed by over 100 right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House which complains that the right hon. Gentleman completely fails in managing the business of the House and says that, as the guardian of the rights of the private Member, he has failed completely to look after their interests? Will he give time to debate the Motion?

[That this House deplores the damage done to the reputation of Parliament and the unnecessary strain placed on the Chair and staff of the House of Commons through the gross mismanagement of Parliamentary business by the Leader of the House.]

Mr. Crossman: I have not only seen the Motion—I made a study of it. It

will interest the hon. Member to know that of the 96 names to the Motion, as many as six stayed to the end of both nights of the Prices and Incomes Bill.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear Business questions.

Mr. Mendelson: With reference to the discussion on the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order, quite apart from any general discussion that has taken place on the late sittings, would my right hon. Friend reconsider the position? The Minister of Power promised the House a statement on the coal industry. This will be the last major opportunity to discuss the position in the industry. There is grave concern throughout the coal fields. Would he not be well-advised, on behalf of the Government as well as the House, to provide time early in the afternoon?

Mr. Crossman: Proper time is being provided. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power will make his promised statement at the beginning of the debate on the Order. Of course, I am prepared to consult, through the usual channels. I have had some informal consultations with my hon. Friends, and, if possible, I will try to meet their wishes.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the point of Motion No. 604 that Mr. Speaker and the servants of the House were here, on both nights, until the rising of the House?

Mr. Crossman: If that was the purpose of the Motion—

Hon. Members: Read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not drift into merits. This is Business Question time.

Mr. Crossman: The purpose of the Motion, as I thought, was that it was a sort of rebuke to be administered to the Leader of the House. If it was to do with the problem of the servants of the House, I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had consultations with the servants of the House, in view of the strong view expressed opposite that we ought to have another week here instead of ending on 28th July. I found that all of the servants of the House, through the Serjeant at Arms, through the Chairman of the Catering Committee, and through


the Clerk, expressed an almost unanimous desire, which I share, to end, if we can, on 28th July.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry once .gain to have to ask my right hon. Friend to give time to my Motion to restore to seamen coming home to visit their relatives the facilities they formerly enjoyed and remind him that it would be decent to do so, having regard to the facilities that he gave for homosexuality last week?

[That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and how calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed.]

Mr. Crossman: The last part of my hon. and learned Friend's question has an implication which I would not accept. As for the first part, All I can say is that there will be two further occasions before the Recess on which he can play variations on that tune.

Sir G. Nabarro: With regard to the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order, which he is bringing on at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), a few days ago, alluded to the mining industry being in a condition of revolt against the Government? As there are a very large number of Members who wish to speak on an Order entailing £750 million of taxpayers' money, could we not have this Order brought here at 3.30 in the afternoon instead of the outrageous hour of ten o'clock at night?

Mr. Crossman: As I said, I am prepared to consider the possibilities here, both through the usual channels and in informal negotiation. We will certainly consider the possibility.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that we have an enormous amount of business ahead today.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the statement in last Saturday's Financial Times, foreshadowing the appointment of Mr. Niall Macdiarmid—an implacable opponent of steel nationalisation—to the North-Eastern Group of the Steel Corporation, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement on this matter before the House rises?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly communicate to my right hon. Friend the wish of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: As one who did stay to the end of the debates on the Prices and Incomes Bill, on both occasions, may I ask the Leader of the House when he proposes to bring forward the Order activating Part II of the Bill? Is he aware that that will take a very long time?

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said. We propose to bring it forward on Monday next, at seven o'clock.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Would my right hon. Friend tell us whether we shall be able to have a debate on the important White Paper on Town and Country Planning before the end of the Session?

Mr. Crossman: I think that everybody will have had time to study the White Paper now. It is unlikely that there will be time for a debate. It is possible that we shall be having legislation early the next Session, but I do not think that I can see any chance of a debate on the White Paper before that.

Sir F. Bennett: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by Members of all parties, expressing concern about certain aspects of the coming referendum on Gibraltar? Can he say whether there will be time for a debate on the Motion? If not, will the referendum Order, when laid, be debatable?

[That this House insists that a decisive vote by the people of Gibraltar to maintain their links with the United Kingdom at the September Referendum shall be regarded as definitive, altogether precluding


further talks by Her Majesty's Government with Spain on the Rock's political future; and urges that the wishes of the people inherent in any such vote shall be speedily implemented in a form and in a manner best calculated to achieve a permanent, effective and close association between this country and Gibraltar.]

Mr. Crossman: I should like notice of the second part of the question. On the first part, I should have thought that the debate on foreign affairs would give an opportunity to hon. Members to raise that matter.

Mr. Gibson-Whatt: Could the right hon. Gentleman help me as I would wish to help him over this matter? It is our wish to help the Welsh Language Bill through all its stages. The Second Reading is to take place on Monday. I notice that the remaining stages will be coming up very late on Wednesday night. Can an effort be made to ensure that it is not too late? This is an important Bill and certain Amendments have to be proposed.
Secondly, would it be possible to have a debate on the very important White Paper on Welsh Local Government, which is a far-reaching document and should be debated in the House?

Mr. Crossman: On the second question, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an extremely important subject. But I think that it is suitable for debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. There will almost certainly be another Welsh debate when we return after the Recess.
On the first question, I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard me, since that business is to be taken in the morning, and not the afternoon, of Wednesday.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this afternoon an Amendment to Motion No. 604 was tabled in the names of over 80 hon. Members on this side of the House? The Amendment places the responsibility clearly where it lies—on the Conservative Opposition, who obviously hate morning sittings. Will my right hon. Friend continue to seek to endeavour to ensure that this place becomes a full-time workshop?

Mr. Crossman: I shall study the names to the Amendment with as great interest as I studied the names to the Motion. I appreciate the number of names to the Amendment.

Sir T. Beamish: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied Motion No. 599, which points out that yet another all-night sitting of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill would be quite unnecessary if the Government faced up to their responsibilities in this matter?

[That this House, in favour of a reform of the law governing abortion, urges the Government to declare itself in agreement with the present Private Member's Bill, amended in accordance with the four requirements laid down last week by the British Medical Association and supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, so that an amended Bill can reach the Statute Book in normal parliamentary hours with the maximum support and goodwill, rather than be the subject of all-night controversy, which brings Parliament into disrepute and will result in the enactment of badly drafted legislation strongly opposed in important respects by the medical profession.]

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman expresses support for the Measure, but I do not think that this is a matter on which we should act. The House will have an opportunity to act in the relatively near future.

Mr. Blaker: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 598, which calls on the Government to reconsider their policy in relation to the £50 travel allowance? Will it be possible to have a debate on the Motion, if not next week, then perhaps when we resume in the autumn?

[That this House, noting that all major countries of Western Europe, North America and most of the rest of the countries of the free world except Great Britain allow their citizens either complete freedom in exchange facilities for foreign travel or a maximum at least five times as great as Great Britain, believes that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to maintain exchange facilities for travel in non-sterling countries to residents of the United Kingdom at a maximum of £50 is unrealistic, contrary


to the understanding and spirit of international convention and damaging to the reputation of Great Britain, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their policy in this matter without delay.]

Mr. Crossman: Thanks to the activities of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise that subject in the economic debate.

Mr. Onslow: Referring to Motion No. 604, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is no one in this building who has any confidence in his control over the business of the House? Therefore, it is not surprising that the servants of the House have turned down his offer of an extra week's work.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask business questions.

Mr. Crossman: I suppose that the answer is that each of us must form his own view of what the House thinks. We have late sittings from time to time, as we must. I remember that in our days of opposition one took some credit for one's power of delaying the Government's work. The Opposition should take their fair share of the credit for the success that they have had in the last week.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the Motion now.

Sir J. Eden: Even though the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consider the representations which have just been made to him about Tuesday's business, how is it that the coal industry Order was put down for Tuesday in the first instance? Surely he knows from his own experience that that must lead to an all-night sitting. Is that his inention?

Mr. Crossman: It was originally put dawn for Monday. Then we had to modify the business because of the need to deal with the Prices and Incomes Order avid I moved it to Tuesday. If hon. Members feel that we should consult further on this matter, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have a statement on the results of Lord Alport's mission?

Mr. Crossman: No, I cannot. Lord Alport does not get back until Monday morning. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the first thing for him to do is to report to the Prime Minister. Then there will be consultations through the usual channels about what form the discussion should take.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the need for hurrying forward the Civil Defence Regulations before the Recess? Does my right hon. Friend think that they will be needed during the Recess?

Mr. Crossman: It is part of the Leader of the House's habit of trying to get 20 or 30 affirmative Orders finished en bloc.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he has taken the unusual course of putting on today's business two Bills to be
proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed
when he knows perfectly well that the first-mentioned Bill is liable to take a very long time indeed?

Mr. Crossman: I think that what the hon. Gentleman is referring to is the fact that Friday's business has been put down for Thursday. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I have done that merely because of the unpredictable nature of what might happen on Friday. Nothing will be done about that business until after eleven o'clock on Friday morning.

Mr. Buck: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has come out and that at any day we must expect the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary? Would he not agree that it is most important that we should have a debate on these important documents before the Recess?

Mr. Crossman: It is a good principle not to decide on debates before the Reports have been published. I think that we should look forward to rising on 28th July, when we shall have plenty of time to read the Reports.

Mr. Goodhart: In view of the depressed condition of a number of British citizens who were recently advised by the British Government to leave the Middle East, when may we


expect an announcement about Government policy on British refugees in this country?

Mr. Crossman: I will put that point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he said that he would endeavour to avoid setting down agricultural business which clashed with the sittings of the Select Committee on Agriculture? Next Wednesday's business is very germane to the matters which the Select Committee is considering at the moment. Therefore, the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is most inconvenient.

Mr. Crossman: I agree, but the fact is that we have a mass of Orders which require to be studied by the House before the end of this month and, though I much regret it, I did not see a way of avoiding that coincidence of time.

BILL PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES

Bill to make it an offence to remove without authority any work of art from a publicly-owned collection, presented by Dame Irene Ward; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY AND ROYAL AIR FORCE (GOVERNMENT POLICIES)

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected either of the Amendments on the Order Paper to the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for having made a project, of which they had no firm assurance and which has now collapsed, the core both operationally and industrially of the long term aircraft programme of this country.
For nearly three years now we have been living in the golden age of planning. We have had the much blazoned National Plan, which was torn up within a year. We then had the great Defence Review, heralded with so much éclat by the Secretary of State for Defence. Having applied his superior intellect to all the great problems of defence in a way, so he claimed, which had never been done before, he came to the House, like a Moses among Defence Ministers, and handed down the tablets. Alas, as we now see, those tablets proved to have been made of paper and not of stone, and they, too, are now torn up ready for the bonfire.
The Secretary of State for Defence, ably assisted in the early days by the present Home Secretary, started off by destroying all the British projects for future military aircraft which were then in existence. Thus, having created his own void, he started to fill it with his own chosen projects, chief of which was the Anglo-French variable geometry project which, to use his own well-known words, was to be
both operationally and industrially, the core of our long-term aircraft programme.
There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the position which has


arisen with the demise of that project. Whatever else he did, the Secretary of State certainly did not exaggerate when he described the AFVG as the "core" of the Government's programme. As he himself said in this House on 28th February this year:
… the point which I want to make is that without this project there would be no design work for the British aircraft industry after work on the Concord finishes, and without that design work them would be no future for the aircraft industry not only in Britain, but in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February. 1967; Vol. 742, c. 390–1.]
Therefore, as I say, there is no doubt about the critical nature of the position in which we now find ourselves.
Perhaps in passing, in relation to those words of the Secretary of State which I have just recalled, it is interesting to note the importance which the Government have recently attached to Concord in view of the fact that they tried hard to cancel it, with everything else, at the end of 1964, and would have succeeded in cancelling it but for two things: first, the French Government insisted on maintaining it; and, secondly, the Conservative Government had included terms in the Concord agreement which prevented a sudden, arbitrary unilateral withdrawal. What a pity it is that the Labour Government did not include equivalent terms in the AFVG project. Had they done so, the story might have been very different today.
What are we to do now? That is what the House and the country will surely want to hear from the Government this afternoon. I wonder how the Secretary of State will reply to this debate. I trust that he will not try to bluff it out by being even more arrogant, even more pleased with himself, even more bombastic than we have come to expect. Nor do we want from the right hon. Gentleman any more of the famous Healey new arithmetic. We had more than enough of that on 1st May in the debate on the F111.
It was reported that when the present Rime Minister took office he said that he was going to be the most political Prime Minister since Lloyd George. I think whatever else he has not succeeded in, he has certainly succeeded in that. Like master, like dog. I think it was Balfour w'-to said of Lloyd George that he used to treat figures like adjectives. That is

how the Secretary of State treats figures when he indulges in his new arithmetic.
We have had the "phoney" arithmetic. We have had the blinding with science. We have had the pride, and we have had the fall. Now let us have a touch of humility, or, better still, perhaps, let us have a new Secretary of State. What we want today is for the Government to give us not self-justification, not bombast, not "phoney" arithmetic, but hard, serious factual information about what the Government will do now to correct the critical situation in which we find ourselves. It is only the Government who can give us and the country this answer.
On 5th July the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the Opposition should have told him what to do. No Opposition can do that, and the Secretary of State knows that better than anybody else. Indeed, as the present Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition:
Frankly"—
it is interesting to see that the Prime Minister used that word even then—
until an Opposition become the Government they do not possess … the secret military information required …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1964; Vol. 696, c. 1404.]
So we cannot, any more than any other Opposition, tell the Government of the day precisely what they should do.
On 1st March this year the Secretary of State told the House:
… we have contingency plans for all circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 479.]
We want to hear what they are. Somewhat earlier, on 30th November, 1966, in an aviation debate, I put a precise question to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who was then Minister of Aviation. I should like to quote what I asked him and what he replied. I asked:
Can the Minister assure the House that in the unfortunate event of the Anglo-French V.G. project falling to the ground, the Government have done contingency planning for the alternative?
This is what the Minister replied:
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are very well advanced with contingency planning about what we should do. We would hope to make an announcement almost immediately if it failed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th November, 1966; Vol. 737, c. 430–1.]


We ask for that announcement today. If it is not available today, the Government, through the mouth of the then Minister of Aviation, was deliberately misleading the House and the country.
On 5th July, just over a week ago, when the Secretary of State for Defence announced finally the collapse of the AFVG agreement—having played with words in order to stall the news a week earlier—he sought to excuse himself to the House on two grounds—that it was not his fault, that the French had done it; and that the Opposition should have told him that he was making a mistake and what he ought to have done instead. Both lame duck, if not dead duck, excuses. Of course, the Opposition welcomed the AFVG agrement and wanted it to succeed. It was, after all, the Conservative Government who started Anglo-French co-operation in aircraft projects.

Mr. R. T. Paget: What a crackpot thing to do.

Mr. Carr: That is a point that we can argue with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about on another occasion.
It was the Conservative Government who started this. It was even a Conservative Government who had the first exploratory talks with the French about the possibility of co-operation on a variable geometry project. But, we never put all our eggs into one international basket. Nor did we ever support the present Government in doing so. Indeed, we censured them severely for cancelling every single advanced British project. International co-operation, however desirable and vital in the long run, is bound to be uncertain and to carry grave risks in the early stages.
The French Government were never so foolish as to destroy all their national projects. They never put the whole of their defence and technological capability at the mercy of an uncontrollable veto by a foreign Government. When we—I mean the then Conservative Government—committed our hopes for the most advanced technology in civil aviation to the Anglo-French project, the Concord, we made an agreement which prevented one party to that agreement from making an arbitrary and sudden withdrawal. We were criticised for doing so, but how

much wiser the present Government would have been if they had done the same with the AFVG.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am puzzled about this. The right hon. Gentleman says that he would not have put all our eggs into one basket. He says that he is in favour of Anglo-French co-operation. Does this mean that he would have had the second British project running parallel? Otherwise, what does it mean?

Mr. Carr: It means exactly what I said; and if the hon. Gentleman will examine what France is doing he will get some idea of what we might have done. Certainly, we would not have cancelled all three of the British projects and put all our eggs in this one basket. When we made the agreement about the Anglo-French Concord we put in terms which prevented sudden and arbitrary withdrawal—

Mr. Dalyell: I asked—

Mr. Carr: —and we were criticized—

Mr. Dalyell: My question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No matter how keen the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may be, he cannot keep up a running commentary while the right hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Mr. Carr: If Her Majesty's Government could not, or would not, do the same over the AFVG, they should never have gambled on one international project to this extent. If they were to depend one such project to this extent, they should have sought the same sort of watertight agreement which we had over Concord. It is for that gamble that we condemn the Government.
We also condemn them for their foolish, blind, wishful thinking and overoptimistic persistence in this matter to the very last moment, in spite of all the warnings about what might be ahead. Anyone with contacts in France knew, and has known for a long time, of the risks and danger—the danger which for many months has amounted almost to a probability—that the French Government, for a combination of budgetary, military and political reasons, would, in the end, be unwilling to proceed with the AFVG project.
Whatever the Secretary of State may say—and whatever the French Government may say publicly in their statements about the only reason being budgetary—anybody who has had any contacts in France for any length of time knows that military and political reasons as well are involved, and that they have been clear for all to see for a long time.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the French Government formally stated in public twat their only reasons were budgetary. Is he now claiming that the French Government were lying? If so, will he have the guts to say so in the House?

Mr. Carr: To lie is to tell a complete untruth.

Mr. Healey: Answer my question.

Mr. Carr: It is quite normal for Governments to limit the reasons which they give in public statements. This is a well established attitude and habit. I repeat mat anybody with contacts in France knows that there are other reasons as well. There are budgetary reasons certainly, but other reasons as well, which, in combination, always—or, at least, for a very long time—made the cancellation of this project by France a distinct possibility, to put it very mildly indeed.
We have certainly welcomed, supported and wished success to the AFVG project from the very beginning. However, also from the very beginning my hon. Friends and I have warned the Government. For example, I gave a strong general warning about the risks attached to international co-operation when I spoke in the Plowden debate in February of last year. I said:
Several practical warnings must be sounded if success is to be achieved. It would be only too easy for us as politicians, to grasp at the concept of European co-operation as a lifebuoy to cling to, and then to find, in a few years' time, that we were no better off."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 917.]
That was a general warning.
In the defence debate a month later—in March, 1966, just before the opening of the election campaign—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) ex-

pressed such strong doubts about the AFVG that he was accused by the then Minister of Aviation of throwing
… everything but the kitchen sink at the variable geometry concept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1935.]
That could hardly be called uncritical support.
Indeed, in the aviation debate on 21st November last I spoke of our concern at the Government's decision to make the AFVG both the operational and industrial core of our long-term aircraft programme. Referring to that "operational and industrial core" statement, I said:
Those were strong and definitive words, and we on this side of the House warmly welcomed them. But we assumed, as, I think, we have the right to do, that before such firm and definitive words were used by any Government in an annual Defence White Paper, they would have been based upon some firm foundations
I went on:
Now we see that they were not. We now see that it all depends upon a decision by the French Government. The core of our future aircraft programme, militarily and operationally, is exposed to the veto of the French Government. In international co-operative ventures both parties must have their own rights. But before something is presented to the country and the world as the core of our future programme, militarily and industrially, surely an agreement with the other Government should have been reached, so that we were no longer dependent, as we were then and apparently still are, on decisions not taken at the time and still not taken by the French Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 950.]
There could hardly have been a clearer and more specific warning.
The Secretary of State came to the House on 18th January of this year full of complacent certainty and pride in the agreement which he had made and said, among other things, that we could now agree that the industry had a stable programme of military aircraft. We mixed our welcome with some scepticism, and a little later we drew attention to the uncertainty of the French position, which had been explicitly stated in the announcement on behalf of the French Cabinet by Mr. Bourges, the Secretary of State for Information in France. Our doubts were brushed aside. Indeed, the Secretary of State's hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth), who I am pleased to see in


his place today, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was
… aware that the absence of congratulations from hon. Members opposite is rather significant?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 407.]
It was indeed.
I could give many examples of warnings issued by my hon. Friends and I. Similar warnings came repeatedly from the best informed correspondents in the Press. I could quote many examples. However, in spite of all these warnings the Secretary of State plunged blindly on, carried away by the euphoria of his good personal relations with M. Messmer and pride in his own cleverness. Whoever else might be wrong, he must be right and, in the end, all other men and Governments of intelligence must walk in step. But they have not, and, to quote President Truman's dictum, "The buck stops here".
Now the thing that matters most to this country is to mount an urgent rescue operation. The Government's operational and industrial core has turned out to be rotten. What is the new and real core which we are now to put in its place? It is now the Government's urgent duty to put new and, this time, solid, proposals before the country, and without delay.
We agree with the Prime Minister that no Opposition can do this in specific and detailed terms, but we can and shall indicate the essential requirements which we believe must be made. The first essential is to make good the gap in our defence equipment. This could be done—and, I suppose, from the purely short-term defence point of view, probably most easily and quickly done—by a new purchase of foreign aircraft—more F111s or a new purchase of one of the other many American aircraft either in production or on the stocks.
However, I wish to state clearly and catergorically, on behalf of the Opposition, that this is not the way in which it should be done. Our theme has been, and still is—as I made clear in, for example, my speech in the defence debate on 8th March of last year—that it is a matter of vital importance for Britain to maintain an independent defence capability. It is vital in two senses. First, in the sense of maintaining a structure of forces and equipment which enables us

as a country to play our chosen rôle in a wide variety of circumstances and areas of the world. Second, in the sense of maintaining an independent and industrial technological capability to produce, if not all, at least a wide range of modern sophisticated weapons and equipment. We understood that this was also the Government's policy, and we say to them strongly today that they must not now be panicked into giving it up.
This does not mean that in the future—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the important question of making good the gap in our defence requirements, will he tell us whether it is his view that one of the requirements is that the replacement aircraft should have the capability of operating in a Far Eastern rôle?

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I think that I had better make my own speech. I shall make some of those points clear, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will make others clear if he catches the eye of the Chair later.

Mr. Paget: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by an independent defence capability? Does he think that Israel had an independent defence capability?

Mr. Carr: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be patient and let me make my speech in my own way he will discover the Opposition's view on that. I have no doubt that he and the House will realise that I am speaking about it in relation to aviation and the aircraft industry. That is not the only aspect of the problem, but it is the one before the House today.
What I have said does not mean that in the future, any more than it meant in recent years under both Governments, we must build all our own aircraft and never buy from the United States or other countries. However, it does mean—and perhaps this is the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking from me on this aspect—that we must always be engaged in building, with a strong part in the design leadership, at least one advanced military plane.
As the Secretary of State understands, judging by the quotation which I read earlier, the British aircraft industry without the AFVG would lack the necessary design work for the future, and there would be no future for it. He stated that, and we completely agree. There must, therefore, be a new British-led project. If practically possible, it should be a co-operative venture with Europe for both economic and political reasons, because we should be unwise to swing in disillusionment from the one wrong extreme of utter dependence on international co-operation to the other of having nothing to do with it at all.
With the lesson of our recent experience, and because of the great urgency, we shall now have to tackle the problem in a new way. We cannot afford to begin all over again with years of inter-Governmental meetings and committees. In our view, the best way of going about it would probably be for Britain firmly to make up her mind to build a new military plane and then say to other countries in Europe, in effect, "Here is a plane which we, Britain, will definitely build in any event. But in return for a firm order from you, we will offer you, if you wish, a share in both the design and production work."
That would be a basis on which we could maintain our necessary capability on terms which would ensure engineering and production efficiency. As I and many others have said in previous debates about aviation, whatever may be true about its being the only way to get international co-operation off the ground the sharing of production responsibility on a nationalistic basis between two countries does not lead to full efficiency and speed of production. Therefore, it is liable to carry within it the seeds of its own destruction. What I have just suggested would be a basis on which we could maintain our capability on terms which would also ensure efficiency and offer scope for genuine European co-operation and partnership.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Do we understand that if the international collaboration failed we would build this plane by ourselves and for ourselves?

Mr. Carr: I think that at this juncture that is the only option open to us. But to be successful the project which we would offer would have to be very closely designed to meet the future needs of our other European partners and, if possible, other countries as well. That is very important
The best hope might well be a plane that is not an exact copy of the AFVG, but one designed to replace the F104 in the middle of the 1970s, for which there must be a very large demand throughout Europe. Such a plane should probably incorporate the much-vaunted variable geometry principle, but before committing ourselves to that we should also consider the possibility of a further development of the principle of vector-thrust vertical take-off, in which Britain has undoubtedly obtained a world lead.
The maintenance of our independent capability involves not only a project for a military plane, but also a future programme for the aircraft industry as a whole. If our technological capacity cannot survive without involvement in military aircraft, it is equally obvious that it cannot survive by military projects alone and must have a complementary civil programme. The two are interdependent.
On the civil side as well there is, unfortunately, a crisis, aggravated, but not caused, by the AFVG debacle. When questioned on Tuesday about what would be the future core of the aircraft industry, the Minister of Technology weakly referred to the wide range of civil and military aircraft already under construction—all, incidentally, started by the Conservative Government. But both he and the Secretary of State for Defence know quite well that the current satisfactorily heavy order load for the aircraft industry does not provide a core for the future and will not ensure the exports, the capability or the technological spin-off which we need in the 1970s and onwards. To achieve these we must be committed to a number of complementary advanced projects.
The only truly advanced project which the industry has at the moment is the Concord, which, as I have already said, right hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to cancel. We must also have advanced subsonic projects. The key to unlock the


problem is to be found in the decisions which must still be taken on the European airbus and the new aircraft for British European Airways, decisions which are being allowed by the Government to drag on untaken for a dangerously long time.
Let me make our position quite clear on the European airbus. If it can be done successfully and in time, we support it; but we also issue a grave warning about the dangers. The Government have a very heavy responsibility here which is not easy to discharge. But they cannot pass it on to anybody else to make up their minds. Ministerial meetings and inter-Governmental committees have been sitting on the project for years, and still no final hard decision has been taken. Time has now almost run out. At least one, and probably more, of the great companies in the United States are about to embark on producing a competitive aircraft. If the European airbus arrives too late, at the wrong price or with an uncompetitive performance, it will be the most disastrous white elephant of all time, from which the British and European aircraft industries will never be able to recover.
We see dangerous signs that the Government—and particularly the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, are becoming as politically obsessed with the airbus as the Secretary of State for Defence has previously been with the AFVG. I repeat that we support the European airbus concept and would dearly like to see it carried to a successful conclusion. But the Government have very heavy responsibility which only they can bear for quickly making a hardheaded judgment as to its prospects and practicability. They will not be forgiven if they continue the international negotiations interminably to the point when either it is not produced or it is produced too late, and, at the same time, they refuse to proceed with the development of a British interim aeroplane such as the BAC211.
Lastly, the British aircraft industry, if it is to survive and if it is to provide us with the technological capability which we need, requires not only a programme but also certainty about its structure and organisation, and here, too, the Government have caused chaos. After dithering

for almost a year about the central conclusions of the Plowden Committee's Report, they finally announced last November that they intended to bring about a merger between the two major airframe corporations, with a substantial Government participation in the equity of the new company. But another eight months have passed, and still nothing has been decided or done. Indeed, there are now increasing rumours that in the end the Government may find their policy impracticable to carry out.
We recognise that mergers of this scale and complexity are bound to take a long time to investigate and negotiate, but that is one strong reason among many others why they should be embarked upon only with very careful policy thinking beforehand and at a most carefully selected moment in time. In our view, as we have made clear, the policy thinking was half-baked and the timing disastrous.
However that may be, certainty about the future is now absolutely vital to confidence; vital to the forward planning of investment in the industry and vital to the stability and improvement of managerial and engineering efficiency. One of the Government's greatest handicaps in bringing that about is that they command neither confidence nor trust, and this lack has only been made worse by the outrageous speech which the Minister of Technology recently made when a guest of the Society of British Aerospace Companies at their recent annual dinner.
There is nothing wrong, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, and there can be much right, in a Minister stating his policy firmly and even toughly, provided that it is done in the right way and on the right occasion, which, I would also say to him, is usually in private. But we cannot afford the damage done—and I am sorry to be offensive—by clever whizz-kids who mistake rudeness for the tough efficiency of an American tycoon.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly read out any reference in that speech which was critical of the industry as distinct from being critical of himself and his colleagues who have been Ministers of Aviation? May we have the words?

Mr. Carr: No. I will not read from the speech.

Mr. Bean: May we have the quotation?

Mr. Carr: Mr. Carr rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Carr: I will not withdraw, nor, after all the time that I have occupied in giving way to hon. Members opposite, will I take further time of the House by quoting. But the criticisms of the Society considered within the context of its being a public occasion, must, I think, make it quite clear that what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion, when he was the guest of the industry, caused offence. It does not do good for Ministers to behave in that way.

Mr. Benn: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the speech. I ask him to read any reference from the speech, the whole text of which was released, which was in any way critical of the industry as compared with its criticism of the behaviour of himself and h s colleagues as Ministers of Aviation.

Mr. Carr: I shall resist the temptation to read out a large part of the speech.

Mr. Benn: There is no such passage in the speech.

Mr. Carr: If the right hon. Gentleman is so satisfied that it is not there, let him place a copy of the speech in the Library, if it is not there already, and let hon. Members read it. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends who will speak today are well aware of what I mean.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech?

Mr. Carr: I read the speech from cover to cover, from beginning to end—at least the public version of it. I have made these remarks having read the speech, but I do not think it appropriate to quote it and—

Mr. Healey: This is a very serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman has made a most serious allegation against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, but it turns out that he has no means whatever of substantiating it.

Is it not one of the customs of the House that he should withdraw the allegation?

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Carr: The Minister of Technology went to that dinner and made a number of remarks. If he insists I will certainly quote some of them which, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, were taken with deep offence by members of the industry, and rightly so.

Mr. Benn: Quote it.

Mr. Carr: I have read the speech and I will not argue further about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] It is useless hon. Members opposite shouting "Go on". I should have gone on and sat down some time ago if they had not been so persistent in their interruptions.
The Minister of Technology said:
In the old days the Minister of Aviation was an aviation man through and through and was seen as such by his Ministerial colleagues. He was the last of the big spenders. He could spot a Minister of Health with a big hospital programme and stop him dead in his tracks with a huge new and expensive aircraft project. Successive Ministers of Aviation secure victory after victory in the battle for a share of the public purse. As a result, they became the most hated and feared Ministers in Government. While their colleagues were grateful for anything they could wring from the Chancellor, Ministers of Aviation ran off with sums of money that made the Great Train Robbers look like schoolboys pinching pennies from a blind man's tin. Just consider the figures. Since the war the Government has spent £5,000 million in the aircraft industry. Of this, about £3,500 million has been spent on buying aircraft. The remainder—£1,500 million—on research and development. This is about six or seven times as much as Government expenditure in either the shipbuilding or motor vehicle industries.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order. It is evident that the right hon. Gentleman is reading that speech with interest and has never read it before. What he has read confirms entirely my right hon. Friend's statement that his remarks were directed entirely to Conservative Ministers of Aviation, and that the whole House knows that they were fully justified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): No point of order arises from that. The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) is entitled to make his speech in his own way and to make such quotations as he wishes to make. Other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who take part in the


debate will be able to comment on it in any way they wish.

Mr. Carr: I will not quote further, although I could. The implication of these remarks was that the industry had taken this vast sum of money and had not used it in the national interest, and that they had not been granted it in the national interest.

Mr. Paget: Was not that true?

Mr. Carr: I think that the hon. and learned Member cannot have looked at the export record of the industry nor can he have considered how much of the vast sum of money which was spent by the Government was spent directly as a customer buying their own products for their own use.

Mr. Healey: At a loss.

Mr. Carr: Be that as it may, the implication was quite clear to the industry and was so taken by the industry. The new President of the S.B.A.C., Mr. Hunt, in his speech, said with great restraint, that what Mr. Benn had failed to point out was that over the same period the aircraft industry sold £2,000 million worth of aircraft and engines in the export market against world competition, of which the majority earned dollars. I repeat, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were extremely offensive to people in the industry.
We condemn the Government for having made a project, of which they had no firm assurance and which has now collapsed, the core both operationally and industrially of the long-term aircraft programme of this country. We demand a firm statement of future policies and we urge them to make such a statement today. I have outlined, on behalf of the Opposition, the areas in which decisions are needed and the broad lines which we think they ought to take. I end with two short quotations from the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that he will ponder these two short quotations from his own past speeches and make them the serious text of the speech which he is about to deliver.
The first was given to us in the House on 22nd February, 1966, when the Secretary of State said that his Defence Review
has been essentially an exercise in political and military realism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 240.]

The second quotation—on 3rd March, 1965—was this:
The basic problem is to choose the weapon system which is best and cheapest for the job in hand and then to ensure that it is produced …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1343.]
The ideas were right. Only the competence and integrity of purpose were lacking.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Is it not normal practice in the House that, when a grave statement of damage to a Minister or any other hon. Member is made, and it is proved to be without foundation, it should be withdrawn?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The practice is that these are matters of debate and hon. Members on both sides can comment on them as they like.

4.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) should have spoiled a good second half of his speech with remarks which were clearly misrepresentation and for which I think, on reflection, he will recognise that he should have apologised.
There was a great deal in what he had to say in the serious and constructive part of his speech of which I and my right hon. Friends would want to take very careful notice, although I must say—I shall make this clear in the course of my speech—that I do not endorse all of his ideas.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary—I understand why—to lace this serious and constructive contribution to our common study of what is a difficult problem with such a mass of triviality and humbug. At least, the debate gives me an opportunity to tell the full story of the AFVG and to describe the issues raised by the French decision to withdraw.
In the White Paper last year we described the AFVG as operationally and industrially the core of the long-term aircraft programme. To explain why the AFVG was the core of the long-term aircraft programme and what this implies, I must run over some ground already familiar to some hon. Members, ground which was also covered to some extent by the right hon. Member for Mitcham.
First, I should like to define the objectives which any Government should set themselves in framing a military aircraft programme. First, they must provide the Services with the aircraft they need for the tasks the Government may set them, at the time when they are needed and at a price the nation can afford. Secondly, they must phase the programme so that the costs are evenly spread over the years and the flow of design and production work for industry is also evenly spread. Otherwise, uneven bulges will be found in defence expenditure progammes which will compel one to cancel the aircraft or other projects in the programme and face industry with long periods when its resources are idle or under-used and skilled manpower may move into other jobs at home or abroad.
I do not think that any of us today would deny that these should be the objectives of any Government's aircraft programme. By every single one of these tests, the aircraft programme of the Conservative Government which we inherited was a lamentable failure. In October, 1964, the Government found the R.A.F. already dangerously under-equipped for its tasks, with no prospect of obtaining the aircraft it required in time or at a price the country could afford. For tactical strike its Canberras were subsonic and already 13 years old. For fighter/ground attack its Hunters were subsonic and already 10 years old. It was seriously short of transport aircraft. The Hastings and Beverleys were 16 and eight years old respectivey. The maritime reconnaissance Shackletons were 12 years old. We were desperatey short of helicopters for operations then going on in Borneo and South Arabia.
To judge the Tory Government's achievement, let this arsenal be compared with the aircraft already available, not only to Russia and to the United States, but to France. France has the Mirage IV, supersonic, already flying. Compare this arsenal with the arsenal available to Indonesia, Iraq and Egypt—all with supersonic MiG21s. [Interruption.] But the aircraft in our arsenal which might have had to face these aircraft were all subsonic.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: What about the Lightning?

Mr. Healey: I am coming to that later. There were no plans whatever for providing replacement aircraft for these aircraft for many years, and by that time some of the existing aircraft would have been falling apart from old age. That is the literal truth.
All the aircraft we had in our arsenal in 1964 had begun development in the 'forties, under the post-war Labour Government. The history of the military aircraft programme under the Conservatives was one of unrelieved failure. I want to quote the objective report published this month by the Institute of Strategic Studies. It says:
But the present-day lack of British aircraft, and the consequent need to order American ones, was also caused by the frequent changes of procurement policy in the last 10 years, and the continuing attempt to spread resources over too wide a field. All the projects initiated between 1950 and 1955, without exception, became the casualties of changed policy or their own rising costs within too tight a budget, and so were cancelled.
This is an objective account of the first part of the Tory Party's programme.
The fact is that the Conservatives throughout showed a total indifference to cost at the planning stage, which was followed by cancellations before development was completed. That is why they cancelled 30 aero-space projects during the period when they were in office, at a cost of over £200 million.
This afternoon the right hon. Member for Mitcham showed the same total indifference at the planning stage. He said that we should have had two advanced projects on the military side alone, one collaborative project from which nobody was to be allowed to withdraw in any circumstances and one purely independent national project as well. The right hon. Gentleman said—I quote him—"We must have a number of complementary advanced projects". This is what the Conservatives in office tried to do and they found, when they came to it, that they could never afford it. So the aircraft were cancelled, the R.A.F. went without supersonic aircraft, which the Indonesians and the Iraqis already had, and the result was that we faced the sort of difficulty which the Labour Government faced when we came to office in 1964. If the Conservative programme had been continued by the Labour Government, quite apart from the other consequences, there


would have been no money whatever in the defence or any other Budget to carry out either the AFVG or an independent national project, and certainly not both.

Mr. R. Carr: It was quite clear—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept it, if he recalls what I said—that I made it absolutely clear that I thought we should be involved in one major advanced project on the military side and that, when I spoke about a number of complementary projects, I had already moved on to consider the civil side as well. It is absolutely clear that I was then looking at the aircraft industry as a whole and its programme as a whole. I am sure that a study of HANSARD will show this.

Mr. Healey: I think that the House will recall that earlier in his speech, when he was discussing the AFVG the right hon. Gentleman said that it was the policy of the Conservative Party that, "We should never rely on a single collaborative project for an advanced military aircraft. We must have an independent project as well". I am quite prepared to leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to look up his own words in HANSARD. I think that the House will admit that I am right.

Mr. Carr: When I said that I also said that we could not rely entirely on one international collaborative project unless it could be tied up in the same way that the Concord agreement had been tied up.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling. That was not what he said. It might have been what he meant.
So far, I have been discussing the Tory programme from 1950 to 1955—a total failure, with every project cancelled. After that chapter of failure due to an overextended programme, the Conservative Government went to the opposite extreme. In his 1957 White Paper, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) put emphasis on missiles rather than aircraft; but the missiles were a failure, too—Blue Streak cancelled, Blue Water cancelled.
And so the Conservatives swung back again to the first extreme. When they recognised the right hon. Gentleman's error, and began to consider the needs

of the Royal Air Force for manned aircraft again, they repeated all the errors of 1950–55. With two honourable exceptions, the Lightning interceptor and the Buccaneer, all the major aircraft which they decided to develop were either too expensive or too late, or both.
The P1154 was launched as a common aircraft for the Navy and the Royal Air Force. Six months later the Conservatives opposite decided that it was no good for the Navy, so they bought American Phantoms instead. The R.A.F. version, however, could not have been ready before 1972. The research and development cost was appallingly high. The same was true for the HS681 transport aircraft. To have continued with those aircraft would have meant running the Hunters until they were 18 years old and the small force of Hastings and Beverleys until they were 24 and 16 years old, respectively. The planned replacement for the Beverleys and Hastings was three times as expensive as the Hercules which we bought and which are already in R.A.F. service in 1967, five years earlier than we would have had the HS681.
Now, let us look at the Canberra replacement, which is more directly relevant to the AFVG. The TSR2 was four years late in its planned delivery date when the Labour Party came to power. Its astronomic cost, with that of the other aircraft which I have mentioned, would have forced any Government into cancelling it. Otherwise, there would have been a colossal bulge in military aircraft expenditure from 1969 to 1972 which would have knocked the defence budget sideways and—this is the important point—would have ruled out any further development work on military aircraft until at least the middle of the 1970s. The industry would have collapsed meanwhile.
The fact is that the Conservative Government had no long-term aircraft programme of any sort, and could not have afforded one anyway. When the Labour Party took over, it inherited an aircraft programme which was a catastrophic failure by any test and we had to set about constructing a new programme which would make some military, industrial and economic sense.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: What sense does it make now?

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the TSR2 was flying. Can he explain why his Government considered it necessary to cancel the further flying programme, from which we would have had immense benefit and at a cost of only about £2 million?

Mr. Healey: We have debated this many times in the House. One point, which I will make later, is that some of t tie internal equipment of the TSR2 will be made use of in other British aircraft which will be flying with the Royal Air Force.
I want to discuss the alternatives. I will cover all the points which hon. Members opposite are so anxious to bring out. We faced the problem of reconstructing an aircraft programme from scratch. The problem fell into three phases: short-term, medium-term and long-term. A word first on the short-term programme. First, we had to cancel all the three major aircraft which were under development and fill the gap with British aircraft where possible, buying the minimum number of American aircraft to complete the need.
We therefore decided to develop the P1127 and to buy Phantoms instead of continuing with the P1154. We decided o buy the Hercules instead of the HS681. We developed the maritime Comet to replace the Shackleton. We decided to switch the Vulcans to a tactical strike reconnaissance rôle along with 50 F111s to supplement them in the conventional strike rôle until the middle 1970s. Even on the maximum purchase which we envisaged 18 months ago, the savings of this programme would have been £1,200 million over the 10 years to 1975. In fact, the savings are likely to be greater because of the reduction in tasks, which will make it possible to restrict the purchase of foreign aircraft. I will give more details of this when the Defence White Paper is published.
The important point for the Royal Air Force is that all these aircraft to which I have referred, British and foreign, will be in service with the Royal Air Force before 1970. The short-term operational problem was, therefore, solved. The Opposition argued at the time that the industrial problem would thereby be

made insoluble and that there would be catastrophic consequences for the aircraft industry. We had debate after debate in 1964, 1965 and 1966 in which the Opposition hammered away at that theme. It was absolutely untrue.
Let us look at the situation in 1966, the year after all those cancellations had taken place. The output of our industry was an all-time record and its exports were twice those of the last year of Conservative rule. The size of the industry has hardly changed and there is no sign of any decrease yet. [Interruption.] The Conservative Party was as consistently wrong in its predictions in opposition as it was in its planning when in office.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Of the £200 million of exports in which the right hon. Gentleman now takes pride on behalf of the country, can he tell us of one project which was not developed under the Conservative Government?

Mr. Healey: No, I certainly cannot. All I am saying is that hon. Members opposite said that the industry would collapse immediately those projects were cancelled. They were telling a blatant untruth, and they should have known it at the time.
I come now to the medium-term programme. Industrially and operationally, the short-term programme was solved by the measures which we took during the first year we were in office, but there were still some gaps in the medium-term programme of the Royal Air Force in the first half of the 1970s. The Government decided that they must find a way of breaking the old pattern, sanctified by 13 years of Conservative rule, in which excessive research and development expenditure was followed by cancellation before production. We decided that the only answer was to co-operate with others, to share research and development and to increase the production run. Of course, we looked to Europe, and primarily to France, for collaborative projects.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham is quite right: the Conservatives started that, but far too late. They reached agreement on the first collaborative project with France—a missile, Martel—only a few weeks before they left office We developed an extensive additional collaborative programme for the Jaguar


strike trainer and a family of three helicopters. This programme is going well, together with the other projects which we have approved. It will meet the needs of the R.A.F. and will provide plenty of production work for industry up to the middle 1970s. The House may like to know that there are very good prospects of selling the Jaguar to other countries. We expect a very big production run for the Jaguar.
I now pass to the long-term programme. With the short-term and medium-term programmes now on a sound basis, we had to look at the long-term programme. The aircraft which we had already planned and which I have mentioned would meet the major needs of the Royal Air Force as we foresaw them until the 1980s in every way except one. We had covered the requirement for transport, ground attack, trainer, maritime-reconnaissance and helicopters. The one exception was that part of the conventional strike reconaissance rôle which would be carried out by Vulcans as a supplement to the F 111 until the middle 1970s. The Vulcans, however, were to leave service in the middle 1970s. The question was what we were to do about that one element which was still a gap in our long-term programme.
Of course, there was also the industrial problem. There was no new advanced military design work for industry in prospect from the beginning of the 1970s, nor would there have been under the Conservative programme. From the industrial point of view, if it was desired to keep the capability for developing advanced combat aircraft we must give work to design teams in the future.
Therefore, we decided to meet both the operational and the industrial requirement together by seeking to develop a swing-wing aircraft with France. This was a project first envisaged by the Conservative Government before the General Election in 1964, but the Conservatives never managed to do anything about it. The reason was that they were not prepared to adapt their operational requirements to those of the potential co-operator. We were. That is why we were able to reach agreement in May, 1965.
When the project started, as I have pointed out, it was welcomed by the

Conservative Opposition in glowing terms. Indeed, they attempted to take credit for this themselves. But the essence of a long-term programme is that it cannot be as firm as a short-term programme. A long-term project is always liable to modification, if its cost rises intolerably, or the programme slips in time, or a change develops in the operational requirement.
The latter problem is one of the most difficult to cope with. It takes up to 10 years to bring into service a major new advanced aircraft. But operational requirements, depending as they do not only one's own view of one's likely military role—about which the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the intervention of a Liberal hon. Member, said nothing in his speech—but also on predictions about the identity and capability of potential enemies, are bound to be a matter of difficult and uncertain judgment.
The Conservative Opposition are the last to be able to deny this. They themselves cancelled over 30 aerospace programmes during the 13 years they were in office, at cost of over £200 million. Hon. Members may like to look up the list which appears in HANSARD, c. 206 of 14th April, 1965.

Mr. Ridsdale: The Minister has made much of cancellations, but would he not agree that any military Power has to make a percentage of cancellations in its aircraft programme, and that the percentage of cancellations made by the Conservative Government was far smaller than those in Soviet Russia or the United States?

Mr. Healey: I accept that cancellations are inevitable and often desirable. That is why I reject totally the idea that we should engage in a project from which we have not the right to withdraw, as they did with the Concord and we were determined not to do with the AFVG.
Cancellation is not necessarily wrong. The right to cancel—with appropriate penalties depending on the stage at which cancellation takes place—is essential for any Government with the slightest interest in the needs of the taxpayer or, indeed, of the Services. The right of


withdrawal should be part of any long-term agreement, otherwise both parties may be condemned to waste colossal sums of money on projects which turn out to be unnecessary or intolerably expensive. For this reason, as I told the House on 17th May, 1965, when I announced the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding, we included a cancellation clause.
I repeatedly stressed the importance of the cancellation clause at every stage. In January of this year, and again when I met M. Messmer later this year, we decided to put off the period until January, 1969, from this year, because we both felt—I believe rightly—that it is not right to make people pay penalties for a cancellation until a lot of money has been committed. We do not think it right, and we would not think it right to require the French to do so.
With respect, it is ludicrous to suggest that I pretended that this project had a certainty which did not exist. On the contrary, I pointed out repeatedly against protests, from the Opposition that both Britain and France had the right, and must have the right, to withdraw from the project if it no longer made sense for them. The fact is that any long-term project is bound to be uncertain, and the best way to illustrate why this is so is to tell the story of the AFVG in some detail.
M. Messmer, the French Minister for he Armed Forces, the then Minister of Aviation, and I signed the original Memorandum of Understanding to study a variable geometry combat aircraft together on 17th May, 1965, just over two years ago. At this time, the French were Interested only in the strike rôle, and we envisaged the aircraft as a replacement for the Lightnings as an interceptor. The French wanted the aircraft in 1974, we in 1977.
A year later when we met on 6th May, 1966, the British Government had decided to take an option on the minimum number of F111s required to replace the Canberra against more sophisticated targets and to shift the Vulcans into the tactical/strike/reconnaissance rôle against the less well defended targets up to 1975. This gave us both the money and the operational opportunity which enabled us to develop the variable geometry aircraft as the French originally

wished, for strike—to replace the Vulcans and later the Buccaneers in the latter 'seventies.
Meanwhile, however, the French had begun to put greater emphasis than before on the aircraft's interceptor performance. An operational requirement for the new aircraft in this mixture of rôles had been already agreed by the military staffs of the two countries.
Hon. Gentlemen who want to pursue collaboration, as I hope most hon. Members do, must recognise the nature of the problems which arise—[Interruption.] I shall be very glad to answer any hon. Member who wishes to criticise me, and I hope that hon. Members will intervene if they think that at any stage I have handled this matter wrongly—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) likes to stop muttering in his beard and get up on any point, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Onslow: If the Minister is so confident about the way in which he has handled this, and that the French were entirely within their rights in acting as they did and cancelling it, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is anyone in the tragic situation into which he has led us who is in any way to blame?

Mr. Healey: My views on the problem will become clear as I proceed in my narrative.
The French Government, in 1966, felt that the operational requirement as agreed by the military staffs might turn out to be too expensive, so we instructed our military and civilian staffs together to examine possible variants of the aircraft on a cost efficiency basis to see whether we could reasonably expect to hold its cost below £1½ million a copy. During the following 12 months, I had five separate meetings with M. Messmer—and there was a very large number of meetings between officials during that period—against a background of constantly shifting views in the French Government about the budgetary aspects Of the problem, and some last-minute changes of view among the French Air Staff on its military aspects.
In November last year, we agreed that the most cost/efficient aircraft combining the best mixture of performance characteristics at a reasonable cost would be


the so-called datum aircraft, at an estimated cost of £215 million for research and development, split equally between the two countries, and from £1·5 million to £1·6 million a copy for production.
I do not deny that neither I nor M. Messmer could at this stage put our hands on our hearts and guarantee that these estimates would not be exceeded in the event. But the improvement in realism achieved in estimating since the bad old days of the S.B.A.C. meeting can be judged by the fact that, at a similar stage of the TSR2 project, which was more complex, more novel, and very much more heavy and expensive than the AFVG, the Conservative Government estimated its development costs at about £90 million—only a third of what they finally turned out to be.
Nevertheless, the French Government, last autumn, were uncertain whether they would be able to accommodate the project as then programmed in the early years, because of a bulge in their defence budget at that particular time. For this reason, we offered to take all the deliveries of the aircraft in the first years of production, while the French would start their deliveries in 1975. In December last year, the French Government finally decided to go ahead with the variable geometry project and so informed us by letter.
On 16th January this year, I met M. Messmer again and we agreed on a detailed programme of work for the following 12 months, including final agreement on specification by April in the light of the requirements of potential customers elsewhere in Europe. Shortly after this, a General Election was held in France, and M. Messmer was not reappointed as Minister of Defence until the beginning of April.
Meanwhile, the French Air Staff had had second thoughts about the specification and wanted to improve the aircraft's performance, particularly in the strike rôle and in one aspect of interception. The improvements they sought meant a substantial increase in the aircraft's weight and cost—the weight increase ruling it out as a replacement for the American Crusader on the French Navy's carriers. I met M. Messmer again in April, and we agreed to have another

look at the operational requirement and cost.
On 8th May we met again. This time we reached complete agreement on specification, cost, and industrial arrangements, which were British led in design of the airframe, and French led on the engine. The agreed specification meant accepting a 10 per cent. increase in weight, and the aircraft would still have been too heavy for the French carriers. The cost estimates, of course, increased, too. The research and development was now fixed at £240 million, split equally between the two countries, and the aircraft cost at £1·7 million a production copy.
I need not tell the House, particularly some of my hon. Friends, how reluctant I was to accept cost increases of this order, although I will not deny that there was some military and technical advantages in the improved specification. I agreed with M. Messmer that so far as Britain was concerned the increase in research, development, and production costs would have to be covered by a reduction in the total number of aircraft ordered by Britain, so the overall programme cost to Britain remained the same.
The agreement between M. Messmer and myself was, of course, ad referendum to our respective Governments. The British Government approved the new package the following week. Five weeks later the French Government considered it. They fully endorsed the new specification, cost estimates, and industrial arrangements, but, meanwhile, their budgetary situation had changed very substantially for the worse. As hon. Members may have seen in today's newspapers, the French Government have found it necessary to make substantial cuts in planned Government expenditure, both civil and military, over the next few years, and the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft was one of the casualties.
The same evening as the French Government reached this decision on 16th June, I received warning through the French Embassy in London that severe budgetary problems had arisen, and that I would hear more directly from M. Messmer later exactly what they were. As the House knows, I arranged to meet him in London on 29th June, following


immediately after his return from a visit to Madagascar. I made a last effort to see whether there was any way in which the British Government might help to meet the French budgetary difficulties. It proved in vain. The two Governments published a joint communiqué on 5th July, which I reported to the House that afternoon.
I know that this is a complicated story, and I would like to make some comments on it. In the first place, M. Messmer behaved throughout with the greatest frankness, keeping me fully informed at all times of the nature of the difficulties that he faced in France. I do not believe that it is possible to claim that the British Government could have done anything else at any stage to prevent the final French decision—the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is sitting there grinning. If he has any comment to make, I shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. Neil Marten: I was grinning at something else.

Mr. Healey: Very well.
As I was saying, I do not believe that it is possible to claim that the British Government could have done anything else at any stage to prevent the final French decision, although, as I have explained, a readiness on our side to make concessions did enable us to surmount the major obstacles which presented themselves last autumn when the financial difficulties facing France concerned the French defence budget alone, and not French Government expenditure as a whole.
The French Government have taken full responsibility for ending this collaborative project, and have made it publicly clear that their decision to withdraw from the project was caused by budgetary problems alone. Total agreement on the joint specification had been reached, not only between M. Messmer and myself on 8th May, but also had been endorsed by the very meeting of the French Government who, for budgetary reasons, decided that they were compelled to withdraw from the project.
There is one further point on which would like to make the position clear. There has been a good deal of talk in London and Paris, in the Press and elsewhere, that the French Government have cancelled the joint project so as to pro-

ceed with a national variable geometry aircraft based on the Dassault Mirage 3G. I am authorised to say that there is no truth whatever in this suggestion. M. Messmer made it clear to me on many occasions in the last 12 months, and repeated in the most formal terms at our last meeting in London on 29th June, that the French Government have no intention of developing the experimental 3G aircraft into an operational combat plane, and I shall explain why.
At the moment, it is a single-engined flying test-bed, with no operational capability whatever. To turn it into a satisfactory operational aircraft which the French Air Force would accept, would involve further heavy development expenditure of the same order as that which France would have incurred as her share in developing the Anglo-French VG. For the French Government to undertake such expenditure in the face of their withdrawal from the VG project for budgetary reasons would be totally irrational, as well as quite inconsistent with their declared position. I have, in any case, received the most binding undertaking that the French Government have no intention of doing this.

Mr. Dalyell: Have we been given a similar undertaking by the French Government in respect of the F1?

Mr. Healey: No, and I have not sought that.
I do not disguise that the French Government's decision has come as a serious disappointment. Of course it has, and, as the right hon. Member for Mitcham said, it faces us with some major problems which we shall need some months to resolve. On the other hand, the French Government have stated their firm intention to proceed with the other joint military projects—Martel, Jaguar, and the three helicopters—and that they are prepared to consider collaboration with Britain on an airbus. Indeed, we agreed a supplemental memorandum on the Jaguar at the same meeting as M. Messmer told me of his Government's withdrawal from the VG.
This is the best indication that the setback on the AFVG has no political implications, as the right hon. Member for Mitcham suggested it had. It may, indeed, prove to be the case that the French withdrawal from the VG project—

Mr. R. Carr: I do not want to be misinterpreted. I did not mean any anti-British political implications, but that there were military and political internal implications in France.

Mr. Healey: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that point. In any country major aircraft companies are deeply concerned to maximise their own possibilities of making a profit, and there is no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that some of the French companies in the aircraft field were not keen on the VG going ahead. So, I daresay, were some in Britain, but, as I hope I have made clear to the House, the anxieties of certain interests in France about the VG had nothing to do with the decision which the French Government finally took.
It may prove to be the case that the French withdrawal from the VG project will make co-operation on the airbus very much easier. This is the point made in the Liberal Party Amendment, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, but, certainly, the basic principle of all parties in the House, that we should seek to build the future of our aircraft industry on collaboration with other countries, remains as sound as ever.
Meanwhile, we in Britain face two questions which must be presenting themselves to the French Government, too, in an even more formidable way than they are presenting themselves to us. First, what is the nature and size of the gap in our military capability in the latter 'seventies now that the Anglo-French VG aircraft can no longer be counted on to replace our Vulcans in the tactical/strike and reconnaissance rôle? This is a strategic and planning problem of primary concern to me as Secretary of State for Defence.
Secondly, can we maintain the skills in airframe design which we now possess, now that we have lost the AFVG advanced combat aircraft project which was to keep the design team in this field going? This is the industrial, and indeed the technological, problem which is primarily the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.
So long as France was collaborating in the AFVG project we could plan on

solving both the industrial and the operational problems at the same time. I hope that we can still find a way of doing this, but the French withdrawal from the AFVG project, and the two years spent in the attempt to keep collaboration going with France, makes it necessary for us to look at all aspects of the problem with a fresh eye.
If we are to remain free to solve the operational and industrial problems together in a new project, we must keep our designers working while we are taking our decisions. This is why we have provided sufficient funds for the B.A.C. design team at Warton to carry out a project study on a VG aircraft to a modified specification.

Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if he had sufficient funds for this eventuality, this project study was not carried out before?

Mr. Healey: The B.A.C. design team at Warton was fully engaged at that time in working—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member would listen. The B.A.C. design team at Warton was the design team involved in the AFVG project, and was fully engaged on it. It had done a good deal of preliminary work on this aircraft, on a modified specification, but it had not the time, the money or the inclination, as that stage, to do a project study on such an aircraft. Now the project study on such an aircraft is being carried out. If the hon. Member for Woking does not know what a project study is and how it differs from other things, perhaps he will consult his hon. Friends.

Mr. R. Carr: What I pointed out in my speech was that the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, the then Minister of Aviation, when questioned about his contingency plans, said that they were well advanced and that the Government would hope to make an announcement almost immediately—the word "immediately" should be noted.

Mr. Healey: If the hon. Member will be patient—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member."] If the right hon. Member will be patient and listen to what I am about to say he will see that I am answering his question
The design team was engaged on a project study at Warton. Meanwhile, the Government were subjecting the operational requirements to the most stringent re-examination in the light of the further evolution of our defence policy both inside and outside Europe, on which Her Majesty's Government will be publishing a White Paper next week. If this re-examination establishes the need for more strike-reconnaissance aircraft, after 1975 we would certainly wish to meet it in collaboration with other countries. The prospects of collaboration will depend mainly on how we and our N.A.T.O. allies see our needs in Europe developing in the later 1970s.
Three countries at least—Holland, Italy and Germany—are beginning to consider the nature of their needs when the American F104 is no longer operational. If, by collaborating with them on an aircraft for the European theatre, we can economically meet our own military requirement and provide advance design work for our industry, this will be the best of all possible worlds. We are, therefore, arranging urgent discussions with them—discussions of a nature which we were not free to hold.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston) rose—

Mr. Healey: Does the hon. Member want to make a point?

Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point I want to make is still valid and has not yet been answered. We were assured by two members of the Cabinet that if the AFVG project was cancelled the Ministers concerned would almost immediately be able to tell the House exactly what the contingency replacement would be.

Mr. Healey: I am explaining that we got on immediately with doing this. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we could come to the House with a fully specified aircraft, and a list of countries willing to co-operate on it, he must be barmy.

Mr. Fortescue: I do not think that I am barmy—unless I am barmy in trusting the word of Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. Healey: It is a hot afternoon, and the hon. Member is rather overwrought, so I will let that pass.
The discussions that we are having with the potential partners in the new project are discussions of a nature which we were not free to hold while the AFVG project was still alive. This is such an obvious point that I am staggered that the hon. Member cannot take it in.
Another possibility would be to co-operate with the United States and European countries together—perhaps on a swing-wing version of the Phantom—to which some attention has been given in the Press—or some other such project, like the German-American AVS.
If the whole of this examination fails to reveal any reasonable prospect of our producing an aircraft to meet our needs ourselves, either alone or in collaboration with others, there is little doubt that we could meet them economically by buying abroad. But this would have far-reaching implications for our aircraft industry and for other industries as well.
The fact is—and I readily confess this—that none of the alternatives to the AFVG which we can now foresee is without obvious difficulties. That is why the Government worked so hard to make the AFVG a success. If any hon. Member has a suggestion which indicates that we could have worked harder at it I should be interested to hear it.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Since the right hon. Gentleman invites comments, may I ask him to tell the House what he said about the French President on 25th June last year?

Mr. Healey: What I say about that to the hon. Member is that the remarks I uttered then I withdrew in the House, whereas the remarks uttered by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home),' which were of a very much more serious nature, reflecting upon the honour and integrity of the French President, have never, to my knowledge, been withdrawn.
I wish that the Opposition had chosen to face the full implications of the French withdrawal from this project with a full sense of the economic cost of an independent production for a purely national need. I thought that the hon.


Member for Mitcham—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member."] I give the right hon. Member full credit for this. He made some valuable comments on this matter in his speech. But the Opposition as a whole have put down a Motion which is as ill-founded as it is ill-drafted—of staggering effrontery in the light of their own record, and of stupendous irrelevance alike to industry and the nation's military needs.
I could understand the Opposition's Motion if they had themselves opposed this project as the basis of our long-term programme, but they did not. On the contrary, they took credit for it themselves when it was first agreed in 1965—incidentally, they told us then what to do; they said we should do this, and they repeated their support in 1966. The hon. Member for Mitcham for example—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member."]—said in the House on 8th March last year:
As for the major new projects for the future, the industry now has its joint share with France in the Jaguar and the VG projects. These are most welcome and valuable, and I want to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I agree about that"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1940.]
The General Election manifesto of the Tory Party last year said:
Stimulate the new technological industries at which Britain excels. Provide the aerospace industry with a stable long-term programme based on European co-operation.
Speaking for the Opposition in another place, the noble Lord, Earl Jellicoe, took the opportunity, on 2nd November last year, when the project was at risk to emphasise
how strongly we on these benches support this project. It was initiated under the Conservative Administration".
—this was not true—
and is one to which we … attach the very greatest importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd November, 1966; Vol. 277, c. 576.]
This, I think, was true.
The only spokesman of the Party opposite not clearly on record in support of the project is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who, on this as on every other important issue, confined himself to

frivolous and destructive criticism of how the Government were conducting their policy, while wrapping his view of whether the policy itself was right in sibylline ambiguity. He played the same game on Aden, on the TSR2 cancellation, on the carrier programme, and on policy outside Europe.
I have no doubt that when the right hon. Member gets up tonight he will treat us to his usual performance—20 minutes of forensic textual criticism in which pedantry and perversity are mingled in equal parts, followed by 10 minutes of moralising humbug. I look forward, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides do, to watching him gumshoeing around like an academic Sherlock Holmes, complete with deerstalker, pouncing on an unoffending word or sentence, dragging it out of context and twisting its obvious meaning till it cries with pain and bears false witness of some shocking conspiracy to mislead the House or destroy the nation.
It is always well enough done—arguments painstakingly constructed on assumptions invariably false, elaborately concocted phrases that reek of the lamp, superb melodrama, and about as relevant to the real problems that the House should be debating as a commentary on the Philoctetes of Sophocles.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Mr. Michael Hamilton rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Hamilton rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat when the Minister is speaking.

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Hamilton rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. Healey: I ask hon. Members opposite—especially those who are now sitting on the Front Bench, and there are not very many of them: when will the Conservative Party realise that the country is sick and tired of seeing it play verbal party politics with the military issue at the very heart of the nation's security and industrial well-being? When will it start talking about the real,


physical problems instead of juggling with words? Perhaps another trouncing in the Division Lobbies tonight will finally drive the lesson home. I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. Mayhew: Before my right hon. Friend sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has sat down. I think.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): We have never been treated to such an extraordinary speech. The irresponsibility of the Secretary of State's approach takes spine swallowing. I am amazed that he should use words like "serious disappointment" about the bottom being kicked out of his whole programe. After all the assurances from the Government Front Bench that contingency planning was going forward, and would be announced almost immediately if the aircraft were cancelled, he now says that it involves problems which will take "some time to resolve".
What was the contingency planning? Surely the one thing which he should have been examining is the requirements of the Royal Air Force, but the right hon. Gentleman now says that if this new review—part of the continuing chaos of his continuing defence review—shows a need for more strike aircraft in the mid-70s, then, of course, the Government will look at collaboration.
The country must know whether he will now trim Air Force requirement to suit what he thinks he should spend rather than the foreign policies which the Government should carry out, and what equipment the Air Force would then require. The right hon. Gentleman is back to square one. The moment he is in difficulty, he decides to reduce expenditure, which means cutting down requirements. Within the coming week, I believe that we should be told of further cuts in our forces, which will be designed not to fit in with our foreign policy but to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make it look as though he has a viable defence policy.
The Secretary of State has stumbled from one misjudgment to another in the last two and a half years and it is difficult for those of us who have witnessed it to understand how he dare

remain in office. We have seen constant examples of his doing his best to conceal information from the House instead of revealing it. Time and again, in answer to Questions, whether on the cost of the F111 or anything else, he has given figures which cannot be reconciled or interpreted even by the experts. Worst of all, the right hon. Gentleman has taken the Air Force for a ride in the most callous way.
The R.A.F. thought that it would get 110 TSR2s, but that was cancelled, not in a Defence Review or a White Paper, but in a Budget speech. With smooth words, much more syrupy than he dare use in this House, the right hon. Gentleman talked the Air Force into accepting 110 F111As in place of the TSR2s. The Air Force no doubt reckoned that if the F111 turned out all right—it has not done so yet and this is his next problem—they would have one for one TSR2. The time for protest went by and the Minister kept all quiet.
However, shortly afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman decided that the Air Force would not have 110 F111s, but 50, and an undisclosed number of AFVGs, which we assumed to be between 120 and 150 to make up the bomb-carrying capacity. Now, the Air Force, having been persuaded to accept this and believing in the right hon. Gentleman's integrity and intention to look after the force properly, finds that the core, about which the right hon. Gentleman said very little, has been taken away from the Air Force and from the aircraft industry—

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the dictionary definition of a core is a central part normally to be cut out.

Mr. Goodhew: If the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft merely to cut it out, we should have a much better statement from him. This music hall turn is no substitute for the statesmanship which we expect of a Secretary of State for Defence. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will wish to pursue the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a core.
What new arrangements has the right hon. Gentleman begun to pursue? He


has not been pursuing them during the months in which everyone else foresaw this project's collapse. What aircraft will we have and what tasks does he expect them to perform? He has not told us any of that, although he should have worked out that, at least. Surely he has not been merely waiting for the core to be cut out before discussing with the R.A.F. the replacement and its tasks. Are we to have merely a further downgrading of requirements so that he can say that he has saved a little money and supplied many fewer aircraft, thus pleasing his Left-wing, who are the only people to get any pleasure out of this abysmal affair? Where it will all end, I do not know.
One thing, however, is clear. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely failed to fulfil his prime responsibility as Secretary of State for the country's defence and security, and to ensure that the Armed Forces of the Crown have the weapons and equipment to carry out that defence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Cabinet must count the cost, but he should fight to see that the Services are properly equipped and not to cut down the cost.
The right hon. Gentleman began in office with an absolutely fallacious move—the arbitrary reduction in the amount of defence expenditure, regardless of the forces' requirements. He made it clear at the outset that he was not doing the job which the Secretary of State should do, seeing that the country is defended and that the Services have the weapons and equipment to do it, and resigning, if necessary, if his Cabinet would not allow them to be so equipped. Instead, he is the axe wielder, saving money and satisfying the political aspirations in the country of his Left-wingers; calling for a reduction in expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman inherited a programme which he tried to pretend today in a very weak performance was so bad, but which would have resulted in the most modern and effective Air Force in the world. He destroyed three major projects and tries to pretend that it was a great deed to help the country, but it was a serious one and we shall be counting the cost for many years. Now

he whines, like a schoolchild, when this project falls through, "Please miss, it wasn't my fault: somebody else is to blame", rather like the Prime Minister saying that whatever goes wrong the Government will never be to blame—

Mr. John Rankin: Who is the somebody else?

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member will no doubt make a speech, and I dare say that he will do exactly what the Secretary of State has done, which is to run through a long and rather twisted history of past events instead of facing up to the facts. But it is the right hon. Gentleman's fault. It is he who is responsible for seeing that we have the necessary aircraft.
May I draw attention to a statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the Defence Review debate of 22nd February, 1966. Referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), the Minister of Defence said:
Nobody could have fought harder than my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to see that the Royal Navy got more equipment to use east of Suez, even though this meant that the defence budget should rise above the ceiling of £2,000 million; and I regret that my hon. Friend should have found it necessary to resign because the Chiefs of Staff, I myself, and the Government were unable to accept his advice. I think that many of us in the House recognise integrity when we see it and that my hon. Friend has shown great courage in taking the step he has."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 242.]
The right hon. Gentleman should show the same integrity and courage in seeing that the Services for which he is responsible are properly equipped to carry out their task. If he has no assurances as to the proper equipment of the Services, let him follow the example of his hon. Friend and let us say of him, too, that we recognise integrity and courage when we see it.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to use my time to suggest a number of specific actions which perhaps the Government should consider taking between now and October. I understand, of course, that discussions in detail on whether we should have a VG aircraft and do it with European countries other than France, could not take place while the


AFVG with the French was still alive. Of course, the Secretary of State is quite right to say that. But may I start by asking whether we should not eradicate from our thoughts the idea of going ahead and co-operating with other European countries on a VG aircraft at this stage. Both the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have talked in terms of pursuing cooperative ventures—the right hon. Member for Mitcham explicitly.
First, take the position of the Germans. The Germans say that they have no money. Anyhow, they seem to be cutting back their Services by about 60,000 men. In addition, is it conceivable—I put this as a question to my right hon. Friend—that the Germans would surrender the intimate relationship which exists between E.W.R. and Fairchild-Hiller and their joint funding operation with Boeing, and a number of other intimate German connections with American industry? Would they surrender all these to the supposed advantages of an Anglo-German variable geometry aircraft?
My right hon. Friend went on to talk about possible co-operation with the Italians. If the Italians were not interested before, have they not even less reason to be interested now, in the light of the French withdrawal? In any event, supposing we were to co-operate with the Italians, would not the split interest factor still remain, since the Italians might want an interceptor but no more than the French would the Italians be interested in trying to satisfy the British strike requirements? There is still in this matter the difficulty of a split interest perhaps leading to specifications which are aerodynamically incompatible. Can one talk about the Italian aviation industry in terms of being a serious partner?
My right hon. Friend went on to talk in terms of possible co-operation with the Dutch. But surely the recent heated debate in the Dutch Parliament and the subsequent decision to buy the F.5 from Canadair in co-operation with native-Dutch Fokker rules out potential co-operation between Britain and Holland. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with the arguments which have been going on in Holland whether Holland ought to have this kind of air-

craft. Surely, in the light of these debates and the firm decisions to go to Canadair and to introduce Fokker avionics, it is unrealistic to talk about possible co-operation with Holland.
Collaboration on the swing-wing with other countries in Europe is not now a practical reality. Let us forget it. It is not on. It is something of the past.
My right hon. Friend then talked in terms of co-operation between Europe and the United States and Britain together, a joint venture. It seems to me that there are great difficulties in that. It was my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Aviation, now Home Secretary, who outlined extremely powerfully the great difficulties of Britain co-operating with an American firm since, by reasons of scale and size, we should inevitably become a kind of junior partner. When we talk in terms of co-operation between Europe and Britain and the United States on this type of aircraft, I very much doubt whether we are talking about a practical proposition at all. I have grave doubts on the point.
Perhaps I may ask a question in this connection. It is fairly widely known that MacDonnell are putting forward a private venture. Does this interest my right hon. Friends and, if so, how do they feel about a venture by a great and rich American aircraft company which, nevertheless, as far as I know, has no backing of Pentagon finance? I think that that is a pretty risky operation. Secondly, I would argue that it is worth while and rewarding to set up in the Ministry of Defence a post-mortem study group to scrutinise the real reasons for the French action. Neither my right hon. Friend nor M. Messmer would, I think, seriously ask us completely to swallow the statement that they have been forced to take this step solely—yes, solely—because of the pressure on their budget for a number of years ahead.
I am not saying that my right hon. Friend or M. Messmer is telling a lie. I do not think that that is so. I am arguing that this is simply not the whole story. At least, I very much doubt whether it is the whole story. We must remember that this was, we were told, the "most carefully costed project of modern times." The French economic outlook has not been transformed overnight quite to this extent.
Doubtless, subsidiary and domestic factors played a part in the French decision. Of course, Marcel Bloch Dassault has great influence in the Gaullist Party. Of course, the quid pro quo for Dassault taking over the struggling Breguet organisation was permission to go into the serial production of the F.1 interceptor. That is something about which we ought to hear more. Of course, the French Government for political reasons had to save Breguet and make themselves even more beholden to Dassault. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that on television the other night an informed French commentator said openly that one of the difficulties of the aeroplane was that "the duties were very different". This is a point which many of us have suspected for some time—that the requirements aerodynamically are incompatible.
Having said this, I believe that the central point is rather different and from the French point of view sensible and rational—namely, the F.1 is a light, cheap interceptor. The French, having looked at the American experience in Vietnam and, more recently, having taken note of the Israeli military success, and the reasons behind it, have perceived that for them, the future lies in a sound, cheap aircraft rather than a super-sophisticated expensive flying machine.
Perhaps the real reason for the French action in opting out of the AFVG lies more in there having been a reassessment of the requirement in Paris and at the Elysée, rather than in purely budgetary reasons. I suspect that in the last year or so, and particularly during recent weeks, thinking in Paris has changed about the requirement. The French have tumbled to the fact that it is rather silly to give way to an urge towards complexity and expense in an area where it is not needed, at least by Powers such as Britain and France. I am not saying that America and the Soviet Union from their point of view should not develop swing-wing military aircraft. My argument is that the French have perceived that for Powers such as ourselves the swing-wing aircraft is not a requirement; and this would appear to explain many of the actions the French have taken.

Mr. Lubbock: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's analysis

of the situation. Should we not also take into account the fact that the French air staff, and not the British, suggested improvements to the AFVG which resulted in an increase in RD costs from £215 million to £240 million? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that some of the promises made by the French prior to the elections must have had some effect on including this rather expensive project in France's long-term budget?

Mr. Dalyell: Having found it difficult to get exact information, I find it difficult to answer the first part of that question. But I suspect that, as in Britain, there are at least two views in Paris. Certainly, the French air staff may have taken one view, but I think that other powerful aspects of the French Government machine took another. The same argument can legitimately be applied to London. I am not criticising the French Government machine.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I, too, have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation, and particularly to his references to aerodynamic incompatability. Would he agree that the French decision was strongly influenced by the fact that the question of the aerodynamic incompatibility of the two types of F111A had come to the forefront in the United States in the last six months?

Mr. Dalyell: Having found it difficult to visit Fort Worth, I cannot say. Perhaps that is a legitimate question for the Government. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to answer it.
While my right hon. Friend was speaking I asked whether the assurances which he had received about the Mirage 3G also applied to the F1, and he replied, "No, nor did I ask for such assurances". I suspect that while my right hon. Friend's answer was absolutely true in relation to the 3G, some of the same arguments which have been adduced about the F1 are valid.
Before proceeding to ask a number of questions about the nature of the British requirement, we should pause to look at an alternative explanation of events which could be relevant to teaching us something about future technical co-operation. May it not be near the


truth to say that the French, rather than withdrawing from the AFVG project, were never really in it in the first place? Indeed, on 14th March last in the House I expressed the gravest doubts about French intentions. What action did the Government take to check those doubts? Did they, for example, go to the trouble of finding out what the French Ministry of Finance was thinking? Whatever M. Messmer may have said, is there any evidence to show that M. Debre had at any time consented to this project?
My right hon. Friend said that M. Messmer had reported to him, with perfect frankness, and had kept him informed. Should not our large Embassy in Paris have gone to some trouble to scrutinise the French internal attitude towards the AFVG? Anybody who asked questions, and who was curious over this matter, would have had little difficulty in finding out that there were formidable reservations, as far back as February and March, about proceeding with the project.
Have the Government learnt anything from these events about the need to make themselves far better informed about the internal situation in any country with which we are to have a civil or military technological partnership in future? This question of better information about our partners' intentions is relevant and it is not a matter of discourtesy, let alone spying. It is especially relevant since my right hon. Friend referred in Wednesday's Statement to possible alternative ways of replacing the V-bombers in the conventional rôle in the mid-'seventies and possible collaboration with other countries. This matter should be explained more fully.
There should be a study of the technique of international co-operation on advance projects. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has written and spoken on this subject and many hon. Members are asking for a serious study to be made by the Ministry of Defence or through some appropriate body into the technique of international co-operation on advanced projects.

Mr. Robert Howarth: To add to the list of possible explanations for the French action, is my hon. Friend aware that earlier this year the

French were set back by the decision of the German Government to considerably cut back on their order for Transal transport aircraft and that this added to the difficulties? Perhaps the French Government did not know in advance that this might happen.

Mr. Dalyell: That may be a factor, but I find it difficult to believe that the Government of France is so mismanaged in economic policy that major decisions must be overturned overnight.

Mr. Paget: When I was in Paris last November my friends in the French aircraft industry gave me a complete assurance that they were not going ahead with this project.

Mr. Dalyell: I return to the question of requirement. I understand very well that predicting 10 years ahead in a fast-changing world is hazardous and that it is easy to make glib attacks on my right hon. Friend. I am not attacking my right hon. Friend. What I believe is that the Defence Review must contain a proper analysis of our likely tasks in the 'seventies. If our commitment is to be west of Cyprus or north of Dover, we must ask ourselves, "Do we need VG aircraft at all?" In recent months I have never had an answer to a simple question which I have repeatedly asked; who is the enemy to be? My right hon. Friend said that this question of future need was a matter of difficult and uncertain judgment. I agree to that point, but precisely who or what are we likely to be defending in 1974? It matters to our discussion today whether it is an obligation to N.A.T.O. or outside N.A.T.O. In my view, we must concentrate on providing the weapons we actually need rather than the smartest, most sophisticated weapons in the shop window.
I suspect that a proper analysis of our 1974 tasks would show that the Royal Air Force would need transport planes, would need some support aircraft and would need helicopters; that any delivery system is unlikely to he by manned aircraft—that strike would he by missile—and that producing a variable geometry aircraft of a strike specification would be like trying to keep the cavalry in being, something for which we have no need.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think some representative of the Defence Department should be present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Besides it seems that the requirement of a variable geometry aircraft is that for every hour of flight, they need some 30 hours of servicing. In that case, is it not true that if we are to have variable geometry aircraft at all we ought to have a large number in order to be effective? To requote what has been said before, these are aircraft that do not belong in the arsenals of Powers such as ourselves.
Am I wrong to express grave doubts about the variable geometry aircraft as a future weapon? After all, there are many techniques—with which, I am sure, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology is familiar—with which we can counteract terrain-following equipment. The great argument in favour of variable geometry aircraft, that somehow or other low cover gave a certain invulnerability, has been destroyed by modern radar techniques. I therefore hope that there will be a proper analysis again of the future effectiveness of VG.
What does the Secretary of State for Defence mean—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here]—by saying that we are authorising British firms to carry out a project study of a V.G. combat aircraft to a "modified specification"? Surely, the files of Whitehall and Weybridge are chock full of definition studies. It was said by the Secretary of State in his speech—and I think that I am quoting accurately—that we have not the time or the money or the inclination to do this kind of project studying, but my understanding is that every practical alternative has been looked into. That was certainly the impression I got from the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, when, replying to the Adjournment debate on 22nd March, he said:
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions about the estimated cost of developing and producing this aircraft. We and the manufacturers have, of course, already done a number of detailed studies on this aspect of the problem. Indeed, it is fair to say that the cost estimating which has already gone into this project has been more detailed than that devoted to any other British or Anglo-French at this stage of its life.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1677.]

Are we sure that we want yet more project definition studies? I did not follow technically what the distinction was in my right hon. Friend's speech today on the question of depth of study.
Before October, the Government must make up their mind on the question of buying American aircraft and particularly the possibility, which I think should be ruled out, of buying more F111s. In Washington last month I was fortunate enough to have an interview with Senator McLellan, the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee going into the F111, and subsequently to have a long session with his attorney and the engineers on that committee. I wish that we had this kind of committee here. I had the impression that the 51st British F111, should it come, would cost no less than 16 million dollars. That is more than £5 million. I should like a comment on that figure. At that price for the F111, our economy would be knocked sideways.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It means that the budgetary difficulties of France would be transferred to us.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not deny that proposition. Now, we must ask ourselves what kind of Power we are. It seems to me that the time of choice has come to us. Personally, I welcome this debate, because this is a crucial time of choice. We must cease to be self-deceivers and recognise that the Britain of the 1960s simply is not this kind of a Power—not the kind of Power that requires variable geometry military aircraft.
Having said that, I should like to say that I have genuinely as much concern for the personnel of the Royal Air Force as many hon. Members have. If I were a young warrant officer or squadron leader, aged 28 or 29, I should be very concerned to hear speeches like mine and should be considering my future in relation to legitimate career aspirations. That is why the one thing for which I would press would be a far more active policy in placing personnel from the Royal Air Force on advantageous terms which would look after the interests of the individual Serviceman and his legitimate career expectations.
I should like to see far more being done to put men in suitable jobs in industry


and in teaching. With the raising of the school leaving age, I am quite sure that the schemes we should be discussing should include the placing of suitable R.A.F. personnel in teaching in such a way as would be acceptable to the N.U.T. This should be worked out three or four years ahead of the position we will then face. Much can be done, if the Royal Air Force is to be brought down in size, as people like me want, to safeguard the careers of those actually concerned—

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Would not my hon. Friend also agree, and recognise that many of us have found, from Question and Answer in the House, that there is a big shortage of commercial airline pilots which has to be filled in the next few years?

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that is true, but I am very concerned about not destroying the career expectations, into whatever field he goes, of the individual Serviceman or officer.
My last subject concerns the industry. We must not miss this moment. We must recognise that at this moment only the United States and the Russians can do this kind of airframe industry. I hope that there will be a study of the United Kingdom future, recognising that we should not in future be a prime contractor in military aerospace. Some of us were very interested to go on a visit to Marconi's, and I have made many visits to electronics firms. I am quite sure that Britain has a record to be proud of when it comes to the manufacture of components and of sub-systems.
For instance, Marconi's can take the greatest credit for their part in the American air space programme, with tracking stations in Ascension Island and Bermuda, and a factory in my constituency has played a major part in the Apollo project. All this is excellent. It is technology on the frontiers of knowledge and it should be encouraged. I am concerned because I think the time has come in advanced military aircraft when we should opt out of the airframe industry. Aero components and engines we do very well—we should give them encouragement and help them.
That brings up the question of the B.A.C. at Warton. It is time to make

a clear distinction between production and design. It is argued that if we do not do something about it the designers will go in toto to the United States. This may be so, but I would doubt it.
After all, for the F111 they have all the designers they want and perhaps there is no immediate requirement in the United States to have these particularly important people doing their existing jobs. Nevertheless, if the question is should we spend £400 million or £500 million in keeping an elite design team, however good it is, my answer is, no, there are all sorts of other priorities. Besides, many of the people at Warton could be eased out to industries where they would do a magnificent job in overcoming existing bottlenecks. The design team is important, but I have the feeling that the Government have attached an exaggerated importance to keeping the team together at Warton on its present occupations.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I can assure my hon. Friend that many of the design staff have left Warton.

Mr. Dalyell: The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is unpalatable but true. This raises exceedingly important questions. How, for example, do we measure the pay-off of any particular R. and D.? Is it not a fact that R. and D. in the aircraft industry has mounted over the last 10 years to something of the order of 15 per cent. of British skilled manpower and the reward has been 2 per cent. in exports? Certainly this matter of how you do measure pay-off of R. and D. deserves some study because the indirect benefit to the economy of operating in a technically advanced area could be gained at less expense. I would challenge the assumption that the industry needs the technical and scientific stimulant which can be provided only by a major project for an advanced combat aircraft.
I make no apology for quoting directly what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said when talking to the S.B.A.C.:
There is a certain absurdity in suggesting that something which may not be worth doing for its own sake ought to be done, nevertheless, solely because it will indirectly and indefinably benefit someone else, doing something else, even though he has not asked for the benefit of this fall-out and may not even know how to use it.


These words should be underlined time and again in all discussion inside the Government on this matter. My right hon. Friend has come to the core of the matter that all this argument is about priorities. It should not be a discussion of whether or not we want Warton in a vacuum. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) that I shall support him up to the hilt in going ahead with the airbus. Perhaps it is possible to exaggerate it, but nevertheless the techniques should be used more and more in the civil transport field with a fall-out, for a change, into military technology. We should try to reverse the process which has been all the other way, from military technology to civil production.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Sir Ian Orr-Ewing.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sitting near my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I know that he did not sit down. He merely put his notes down.

Mr. Dalyell: If I am obstinate about finishing what I want to say, that is because I think it important. Having in a sense attacked some of the present concepts of the Government, I ought to say one other thing. Of course I agree with having a technically advanced industry in Britain, but I want the present aircraft industry to do a different kind of job in the 1970s. I want a war, but let it be a war against air and water pollution. This can be done, partly through the manufacturing facilities of the British aircraft industry. Let us have major projects on desalination in the Middle East, such as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We shall not be able to do the sort of thing the Foreign Secretary, many of my hon. Friends and I want to do in terms of bin technical civil projects and at the same time go ahead with a variable geometry project. Part of the answer to the industrial problems which quite understandably worry my hon. Friends and all of us, including aircraft workers and management, could lie for example in a major project in marine science.
If hon. Members think this is fanciful, why do Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, North American Aviation and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation sink, not millions but tens of millions—in one case over 100 million—of dollars into the marine sciences? I am sure that those hard-headed men in Marietta, Georgia, and New Jersey do not do this kind of thing without good reason.
So let us think differently and go in for big civil projects and work out how those who would be employed in fruitless, superfluous military projects can under our system transfer their skills to relevant, peaceful and more useful purposes. Of such national goals, the war against pollution, the battle for desalination, and a marine science programme are but examples of ways in which the existing British military aircraft industry could be profitably employed in the 'seventies.

6.17 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I enjoyed listening to the very constructive first part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I have a feeling that if he goes on asking such penetrating questions of his Front Bench he will be put on to another Select Committee and will work harder still and have less time for research in different parts of the world.
I disagreed with the hon. Member fundamentally on only two issues. I think he is wrong to believe that missiles will replace manned aircraft. Manned aircraft, in cost-effectiveness and flexibility, and in their ability to undertake reconnaissance and to use man's intelligence to identify targets, can never be replaced for the rest of the century by missiles. I also do not believe that we shall make this country great by concentrating our aircraft industry on engines and components. I think that young men want to make something which they can see. This is what induces them to work hard and devotedly in an industry which they love. Apart from that, I agreed with much of what the hon. Member said.
This is more or less a debate of censure on the Secretary of State for Defence. I was quite amazed when he started by an abuse of almost every aircraft which he had inherited. He was at pains to say that they were subsonic and old. Only by much persuasion were we able to get


out of him that the rest of the world wanted them and spent £217 million last year in buying them. I remember that when the right hon. Member came to rower on 23rd November, 1964, he said:
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth that he has handed over to me the best weapon any defence Minister in this country has yet had …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd Nov., 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1026.]
This seems rather out of keeping with the abuse he gave to so much that was developed in 13 years of Conservative rule.
I was glad that the Secretary of State avoided the temptation to produce another schedule of costs which are saved during the next 5, 10 and 15 years. We were given this on 1st May. So much has proved to be absolutely wrong that the right hon. Gentleman was wise not to try to bring it up to date this time.
We on these benches have a horrible suspicion that, having had the rug pulled from under him in what he described as the hard core of our defence and industrial programme, the Secretary of State will now find that there is no need at all for the rug. There was a suggestion it his speech that we were to have an announcement soon that he thought that the need might be adjusted. We are promised a White Paper, I think next week. It is all very surprising, in view of the tremendous propaganda exercise which was launched for the Defence White Paper of 1965. We were told that there was to be a Defence Review of such a substance as had never been done before and that matters were to he fundamentally examined on a cost-effectiveness basis—things which had never been done before. Of course they all had been.
When the Defence White Paper was eventually put before the House, in his winding up speech on 8th March, 1966, the Secretary of State said that all major decisions had been taken. A major decision was announced to the House last week. We understand that another major decision will be announced in defence cuts next week. Almost every day that he carries on with his disastrous reign, we have announcements of these major decisions, which certainly have not been taken as a result of the Defence Review.
I was disappointed that we received no indication of the Secretary of State's thinking as to whether this was to be a

co-operative aircraft with Europe or with America, or whether we would go it alone. We were given no idea. We heard so much about the contingency planning earlier on, but we heard nothing on this aspect this afternoon. When the Secretary of State announces the result of his review, if he comes up with the fact that there is no need for an AFVG after all, which is what I believe some hon. Members opposite believe, then perhaps presumably he would have cancelled the AFVG rather than let the French do it. Or was he waiting for the French to do it? This is a slightly illogical approach. Most people in the House who have been studying the problem will have heard with mixed anger and sadness that something which was the very core of the Labour Government's defence and industrial programme has now been upset.
Surely this underlines the unwisdom of not having carried the TSR2 programme just a little further. When this programme was cancelled, we on these benches asked that the three prototypes should be alowed to fly and complete their flight testing programme. It would have cost only another £2 million to have got all the lessons, particularly the lessons on the nav/attack and electronic systems which was in, I think, the third prototype.
However, the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, decided that he would not fly them. Not only that, but he insisted that all the jigs and tools should be broken up and destroyed. So there was no going back. We have never had an explanation of why that was necessary. Now that the substitute aircraft has turned out to be a paper aircraft, the unwisdom of those decisions becomes manifest.
It is for the Government, having made this blunder, to tell us what is to be put in its place. I think that Britain ought to lead a project. Time is short. We have lost a valuable two and a half further years. We cannot go on shopping round trying to get international co-operation on an internationally agreed operational requirement. All this takes time, as we saw with the AFVG. Therefore, I believe that we should say that we will have a British lead project—AFVG type, but probably simpler and certainly cheaper.
I suggest that the variable geometry feature should be included, because I do


not believe that at this juncture Britain ought to opt out of variable geometry. We must remember that the Concord is not variable geometry. But the American equivalent—the SST—is variable geometry. We must remember that the French industry has gained some experience in the design and construction of a prototype of a variable geometry Mirage IIIG.
Are we to be the only nation which will not get variable geometry experience? This would be very bitter, as the original thought and idea came from this country. Although we have to examine the merits of variable geometry and of vector thrust, I would think that for a long time to come variable geometry may well be th most economic in payload and in range and it would be worth producing one project in this country based on that system.
We should say in a wholehearted manner that we will produce this aircraft to meet the operational needs of our defence forces—of the Royal Air Force—and then let us go to other aircraft industries in Western Europe and say, "We are going to do this. If you like, if you want to make a purchase, will you contribute some part of this aircraft?" I believe that this is the way to do it. Let us firmly say, "We are going to do it" and then let others come in and make a bid and tell us what they might contribute in both hardware and, above all, in a market.
It should be remembered that in the period we are talking about—the mid-1970s—1,400 F104s will need replacing. They were sold to countries outside the United States. These countries will be looking for replacements, so there is a tremendous potential export market here. I do not think that we should neglect it. I have a feeling that Australia and other Commonwealth countries will be looking for something of this nature.
I personally believe that we should be the master contractor, the prime designer, because, although international co-operation is a fine thing—we have all paid lip-service to it—it complicates matters. I have some experience of this. I declare an interest, in that I am with a firm which is working on the Concord. Liaison with one's French opposite numbers takes time, costs money, and leads to misunderstandings which have to be righted. The

cost of an international project is probably about 20 per cent. greater than that of a national one. The time taken to develop one is also 20 per cent. greater. I do not believe that we can afford that time. That is why I urge that we should take the lead and that we should be the prime contractor.
It is worth noting also that the Americans are hard after us on this. We read today that Mr. Cuss got in his aircraft and arrived here on Monday morning, the very second the AFVG had been cancelled, as soon as he could get away, with the proposal that perhaps Britain and Germany might co-operate in making or buying the FX aircraft. The interesting thing here is that this is an aircraft which the United States forces do not want, so they aim to produce, or they are trying to produce, an aircraft for export only, whereas I am advocating an aircraft which would not only help to equip our own forces, help fill in the disturbing gap which has now been left, but also, I believe, be very valuable in the export field.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): The hon. Gentleman mentioned cost just now and spoke of a less costly aircraft in relation to the AFVG. Has he any idea of what the projects he is now talking about would cost in terms of R and D?

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It would be unwise for me to say that, because much depends on the size of the market. We should go to potential buyers—the Dutch, perhaps the Swedes, who have a very good aircraft industry, and others—and try to get a larger market. If the R and D costs could be shared over a much wider market, this would bring the net unit cost of the aircraft substantially down. I do not think that the Opposition are in a position to know exactly how many might be made and what the actual cost would be.
If this decision cannot be taken, if it is felt that we must go to the United States and have a joint project with them, I hope that this time the Government will insist on a very firm quid pro quo. Interdependence as a phrase has been thrown across the House and across Congress. I have always found that "interdependence" in American minds means, "You depend on us, and we depend on nobody".
We now have ordered 2,000 million dollars worth of American aircraft as a result of the Labour Government's actions last year and the year before. That is a tremendous sum. If we are to buy or co-operate in a joint venture with the Americans, we should say, "Yes, by all means sell us this airframe or that airframe or this design, but, please, we want a firm quid pro quo." Rolls Royce is one of the best aero-engine manufacturers in the world, but even it has found it almost impossible to get into the civil market in the United States of America. This is an area where a quid pro quo could do this country a great deal of good.
We condemn the Minister of Defence, too, because, despite assurances given to the House and despite the fact that we were told in November that contingency planning was in a state where an almost immediate announcement would be made about a replacement, we now learn that there was very little contingency planning. The B.A.C. project team, only after the cancellation of the AFVG, has been turned on to the study of an alternative. There must have been other project teams available which could have been put to work much earlier and could have honoured the solemn undertaking given both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulloy), now Minister of State at the Foreign Office, and the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, who is responsible for aviation matters, who gave us the same assurance that contingency planning was going on.
I remember the Prime Minister in the very early days of his first 100 days saying that he believed in a viable British aircraft industry. His words were that the British economy demanded a "healthy aircraft industry." After two and a half years our aircraft industry is manufacturing, producing and selling aircraft, but the design end of the aircraft industry must be our concern, because, unless new ideas are fed in to keep the project teams working, we cannot possibly have a healthy and viable aircraft industry in 1975.
We censure the Minister because he made a paper aircraft the core of his whole policy, and this paper aircraft has proved to be a fallacy. He also deceived the House by pretending that

there was contingency planning when there was little or none. I hope that those who believe that our aircraft industry has a future will come into our Lobby tonight to make certain that these incompetent hands of the present Secretary of State for Defence are taken off the tiller and to allow this industry "to go places" under a sensible administration.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I do not wish to engage in any recriminations, because I realise how important this industry is, particularly in my own constituency. Although the Secretary of Defence has been unfairly attacked this afternoon, I was sorry that in an interruption he should have suggested that the Labour statement that the AFVG was the core of our aircraft programme was something less. To me the core has always meant the centre. For him to suggest that the core can be removed was to suggest that he could eat an apple in that way. I do not eat an apple in that way. I leave the core until last after all the flesh has been removed. We were promised that the AFVG was the centre of our aircraft programme.
I am no expert on this subject, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but as soon as I started to study the problem I began to see the wood through the leaves based on readings of the opinions of experts and of an expert committee. The first lesson that I learned was that commercial success depends on a long production run-through in the industry, and that is dependent upon a large market. It is clear that this is no problem in the United States and in Soviet Russia, because the home market in both countries is very large and, in addition, they have markets amongst their political satellites and allies with great political support from their Governments. However, the United Kingdom's industry is in a particularly difficult position. It has the third largest aircraft industry in the world, but it has capacity far too large for the home market. In that case international co-operation is absolutely vital. Where can it look for this international co-operation? It cannot look to the United States to find an equal partner, because the United States is so big. The United States does not need our help or our co-operation.
I hope I am wrong, but I cannot see that in any co-operation with the United States we should get a fair share of the design work. It was suggested in The Times yesterday that we might get some help from the McDonnell Company in building a swing-wing version of the Phantom, but I fear that we would only be a junior partner contributing to the development costs and largely losing the air frame work to the United States.
Whatever arrangement we come to we must keep our excellent design team at Warton. I should like assurance from the Secretary of State for Defence that he will do that and will provide work for this excellent team. It is not true, as my hon. Friend has said, that we have not lost designers to America. We certainly have, and we did so after the cancellation of the TSR2, which was a policy which I supported in the knowledge that we had the AFVG as the core of our aircraft programme.
Undoubtedly our best hope for co-operation is in Europe, because Britain leads in design and in the industry generally. Co-operation with a European country would mean that Britain would have a leading part; she would not just be a hanger-on to a bigger industry. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Defence was right in trying to carry through this agreement and, as he said, he had the support of both sides of the House. I do not feel that he has failed in trying to bring this agreement about. Where the blame lies, I am not sure.
I am no expert, but it seems to me in my commonplace way that there is a certain amount of duplicity on the side of the French Government. That might as well be said at least by backbenchers, if not by the Front Bench, because it shows that we must be very careful in the future. Some of my hon. Friends, with whom I am normally very friendly, have been congratulating the French Government on withdrawing from the project, because they were saving money on defence. However, they have overlooked the fact that the real problem over defence with the French Government is that they are spending too much on nuclear armament, and that is no cause for congratulation. The French Government are committed to expanding their nuclear programme and that will

have a bad effect on any efforts by this or any other country in bringing about a non-proliferation agreement. As I have made clear, I support reducing defence costs if it is not done by under-equipping our forces or buying from the United States, but rather by reducing the numbers of men, especially those stationed abroad, and also by reducing our commitments.
But France is not entirely to blame for the failure of the AFVG project. Our chief difficulty is, and always will be as long as this position remains, that we have an American-orientated defence policy. There is great difficulty in negotiating with European countries, because Europe is concerned with the defence of Europe and not with defence policies in the further parts of the world. France was naturally reluctant to share the cost of an aircraft with greater range and other qualities which were required for an east of Suez policy which France itself abhors. When we are bound to the American defence policy, we are bound to a policy beyond our means and beyond the economic capacity of our aircraft industry. It cuts us off from our natural partners in Europe.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) probably agrees with the views of some of us on this side of the House about an east of Suez policy and if he said that tonight he would put substance into the Opposition's objections to the Government's present defence policy. He has said it in different parts of the country with candour and great courage and if he does not receive support from his hon. Friends, he will certainly receive massive support from this side of the House.
If the United Kingdom continues to be a hanger on to American defence policy, it will be a hanger on to United States defence industry, and in this way Britain will lose her best brains in defence technology to the United States and, furthermore, her independence in defence and foreign policy.
In the meantime, what should we do? I must admit to being somewhat confused, not being an expert, but I have some ideas about what we should not do. There have been four or five suggestions in the Press recently, but certainly on no account should we buy any more F111s at £5 million each, or


any other United States aircraft off the shelf. I would rather quicken our inevitable departure from the Far East. I think that the Government, as well as one or two right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench, know that that departure is inevitable. If it is, why not prepare for it now, instead of spending money on aircraft which we will probably never need, especially if we have to buy them from America? Let us be frank and admit that this situation has been forced on us and that we ought to act all the more quickly. It will then be much easier to co-operate with the countries of Europe in aircraft production.
However, if it is necessary to have a substitute for the AFVG and if we cannot get co-operation in Europe, we should produce it ourselves. Let us remember that the costs are not just in the actual costs alone but in balance of payments difficulties, independence, defence and foreign policy and perhaps steps towards more likelihood of peace in the world. Moreover, the industry will be absolutely vital to our advanced technology. All these matters should be considered by the Secretary of State and I hope that he will take this opportunity for vitally changing the emphasis of the de fence policy of Great Britain.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I think that we all found the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) interesting. I think that he will agree that he was fooled by his own Government into agreeing to support the scrapping of the TSR2 in the belief that there was to be a substitute. I was a little puzzled when towards the end of his speech he used the words, "If it is necessary", suggesting that there was some doubt about whether it was necessary to find a replacement for the swing-wing fiasco which we are debating.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I should make it clear that the AFVG was necessary only as long as we had an east of Suez policy, because of its range as distinct from the range of the French version. If there is no east of Suez policy, I wonder whether a plane of that range will be necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: I should like to register a rather strong protest that the Secretary

of State for Defence should have attended such an extraordinarily small amount of our debate. He made his own speech and then listened to the Opposition Front Bench speech, but since then he has not been in the Chamber. As the debate centres around him, his absence shows a certain disregard for the views of the House itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Opposition Front Bench spokesman?"] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has just this moment left the Chamber.
Although I have criticised the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, there are many things about which I agree with him. I agree with him when he described the situation as a very serious matter. With this Government we seem to lurch from one crisis to another each more serious than the last and this has been the case with every Labour Administration since 1924. The present Government are no exception, except that with practice they appear to be learning to accelerate the process.
There are many reasons for this swing-wing fiasco and I should like quickly to list one or two. It is my belief that France does not like the British Labour Party any more than do my hon. Friends and I. That is nothing to be wondered at. I need not go back through history, but within a fortnight of being elected, the Government caused great anger and bitterness throughout Europe by hamhandedly imposing the import surcharge.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is about aircraft.

Mr. Hamilton: It is indeed. It is about collaboration between ourselves and the Fench and I am trying to explain why that collaboration has broken down.
The second instance to which reference has already been made was the casting of doubt on the future of the Concord project, a casting of doubt which caused M. Pompidou, the French Prime Minister, to comment that
it seemed to indicate a certain contracting out of Europe in favour of the United States".
In a brief intervention earlier, I reminded the House of certain things said by the Secretary of State himself only a year ago when he said that President de


Gaulle was a bad ally in N.A.T.O. and a bad partner in the Common Market.

Mr. Paget: That is true.

Mr. Hamilton: I am glad to hear that for a change the right hon. Gentleman has support from the hon and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to apologise to the House. That was wisdom on his part and showed that he was capable of doing something which the Prime Minister himself is constitutionally incapable of doing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate on the topic of aviation.

Mr. Hamilton: I will say no more on that except that the mishandling of our relations with France in recent years has quite a lot to do with the situation in which we now find ourselves. Now the birds are coming home to roost.
A second reason for this crisis is the vain search of every Labour Government for defence on the cheap. It is a search for cheap solutions and, maybe in this particular instance, for subsidies from the French taxpayer. What this Government have never grasped is that it is militarily dangerous and economically false to equip ourselves with weapons which are not of the very best standard.
One thing which we cannot afford in these dangerous days is a weapon system which does not do its job. That is a fact of life which the Government have shown themselves to be incapable of grasping. A third underlying reason for this situation is the ceaseless attempts of Labour Governments to compromise with their Left wing. This is a hopeless task, because the appetite of the Left wing for cancellations, withdrawals, savings and disengagements is insatiable. We know that when the Secretary of State for Defence made his announcement on 5th July about this breakdown, many of his hon. Friends were delighted with this collapse of Anglo-French co-operation. It can be seen in HANSARD.
I admit that it must be very difficult for a Secretary of State for Defence serving with a Labour Government. It would be less than fair not to acknowledge that. It must be difficult, sitting at the Cabinet table and looking

round and seeing the number of avowed neutralists and C.N.D. supporters among one's colleagues.

Mr. Russell Kerr: This is kid's stuff.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may say that this is kid's stuff, but it is one of the underlying reasons for the breakdown. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that it was a well-known figure who said:
If, as I sincerely hope, the electorate return a Labour Government at the General Election, then this will be a long step forward on the road to victory for C.N.D.
I said that the birds are coming home to roost. I have become very conscious throughout this debate of the folly of those earlier cancellations. I well remember a comment made eighteen months ago by the then Minister of Aviation. Having butchered our aircraft programme, he has now gone to the Home Office, where he is busy with other types of abortion. He said that the TSR2 was the enemy, not only of budgetary economy, but of French collaboration.
That rings a little hollow tonight, because tonight we have neither French collaboration nor the TSR2. Three years ago the aircraft programme promised to make the Royal Air Force the finest-equipped Air Force in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) pointed out that this Government put in the bulldozers to crush the jigs and the tools. They issued special orders that the drawings should be burned so that this astonishing British achievement was foully done to death.
Tonight, like Banquo's ghost, the TSR2 is a spectre at the feast. It is the uninvited guest in the Chamber. As far as I know, one of the prototypes is still in my constituency. It stands outside the hangar, neglected and deteriorating in the weather. There was nothing like it in the world, but today it serves only as a monument to Socialist irresponsibility. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we saw it flying regularly day by day. It flew up to the Pennines, down to the Scillies. It exceeded the highest hopes of its own designer—

An Hon. Member: And the cost.

Mr. Hamilton: It was the outstanding military aircraft of the decade and tonight the Secretary of State for Defence deserves very little sympathy. He had the ball at his feet. He inherited the best that British scientists could produce, but he thought that he knew better. Today we see the results of his folly. I am glad to see that he has now rejoined us. I am glad he has reappeared, so that I can say that it is clear that no saving will result by substituting the F111 for the TSR2. We have heard that further F111s are to cost 16 million dollars each. It is clear that a yawning gap now exists in our defence; it is clear that no Government plans for filling that gap exist; it is clear that the Government have been grossly negligent in their supreme duty, and it is clear that the only honourable course left to the Secretary of State is to tender his resignation.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Rarely has there been an occasion when this House has listened to a speech of the level of that just given by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton). Most of us would regret that the time available in this debate has been used in this way by the Opposition, for purely party political purposes. There are Members on both sides of the House who are able and willing to contribute to the scientific and technical aspects of the problem facing us over the future of the aircraft industry.
If ever there was an occasion when the Opposition should not be making use of this debate to censure the Government, it is now. It should be recognised that our own Ministers have done all that they possibly can, in collaboration with the French, to get the AFVG off the ground. Tonight, we are not here because the Minister has cancelled this project, but because the French have pulled out of it. We recognise that although we want European collaboration, there is always the chance that the uncertainty of such a project will bring about changes.
There are obvious signs of nostalgia on the benches opposite that we should ever have cancelled TSR2. Yet the reasons for that have been given time and again. The project would have been available too late, and would have been far too costly. Having heard the Minister's explanation about the negotiations and con-

sultations with the French on the variable geometry aircraft, I hesitate to say that we failed in any way to make the best of the deal. The Opposition has made no effort to pin the blame upon the Minister for the present situation. Further, it has not convinced any of us that had it been in power it would have made a better deal.
The Opposition are in no position to censure the Government on aircraft policy, as they do from time to time, because, having been in power for only 33 months, we have had to contend with many of the projects which we inherited after 13 years of Conservative rule when the present Opposition were responsible for the cancellation of over 30 projects running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
If the Opposition want to quote the leaders of the aircraft industry who are critical of the Government, we can quote people who have been critical of the Conservatives. I recall the words of Sir Roy Dobson, Chairman of Hawker Siddeley, who said, not long ago:
The Conservatives just would not make up their minds about anything. They just waffled.
In a debate on the industry on 1st February the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), talking about Government management in the aircraft industry, said:
Let us be honest and above party politics in this and admit that we have not in the past managed these affairs particularly well …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 436.]
That comes ill from someone who has been hammering the Dispatch Box today in an attempt to make party capital out of a serious subject.
We have to use the lessons of the past to see our way into the future. We as a Government inherited immense obligations in many parts of the world, and, despite our repeated aim of cutting down our defence spending quite drastically, we recognise that we have to negotiate our way out of many commitments without leaving economic and other hardships for those who remain. We recognise that the care of people is important in any part of the world.
Since they have been in power, the Government have been engaged in comprehensive reviews of our defence spending and foreign policy to ensure that the


national economic resources match our defence needs, and vice versa. It is proper that the House should be very concerned about the French change of mind on the AFVG aircraft. This comes as a shock because we recognise that we need collaboration with Europe if we are to become independent of American domination in many respects, particularly aircraft needs. We must, therefore, do everything we can, despite this setback, to develop closer ties with the French and our European partners.
Those are most important points, but my right hon. Friend the Minister made a wise comment when he said that occasions like this provide a good chance for us to review the policy. When projects are cancelled either as a result of our own wishes or the wishes of others it is time to ask whether we need such a sophisticated aircraft of this type and with this costly specification. Only another defence review, which we expect shortly, will reveal that.
Secondly, we must ask ourselves whether we can afford it if we need it. If the Government are to rebuild a sound economy and to carry out their social programme, they must halt the rise in defence spending. Most Members would agree that it would be unwise to go ahead automatically with another AFVG regardless of our need. We recognise only too well that world events change from time to time. The events in the Middle East in the last few months, changes in the balance of power, and so on, make it important and imperative that the Government should review our defence programme and needs.
It is important always to remember that it is the greatest folly to be militarily strong and economically weak. We therefore have to keep a very good balance so that the country is strong in both respects. But, having decided our defence needs and what we can afford, we must ensure that our forces get the very best equipment for the tasks lying before them. It is as foolish to provide too high a specification of our needs as it is criminal to underestimate them.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that we should always have a fair assessment through intelligence services of the thinking in various parts of the world. This

is very important when we are collaborating on projects with other countries. Then, having decided on the needs, the questions of cost and timing, the supply of spares and the servicing of the aircraft are vital factors. It is difficult for any Minister to estimate the needs of the country based on the defence situation and the foreign policy of eight to 10 years' ahead, which is the time that it takes to design, develop and produce a major aircraft and to train the personnel to use it. It is inevitable that in that time there will be many changes in the world which may well make the vehicle obsolete when it is ready. It is, therefore, always a good thing to have the opportunity to review our specifications, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do that now.
I would underline the comment of several of my hon. Friends that we should do all that we can to avoid buying American aircraft. I have made that point repeatedly in the House and elsewhere, because it affects our independence, it costs vital dollars and it saps the confidence of the world in the British aircraft industry whose designers, manufacturers and workers are the best to be found anywhere. It is only because this country has a limited environment in competition with America and other big markets that we do not always have the opportunity to get in on the kind of projects where our skill, enterprise and experience can show in the best design.
I underline the point of several of my hon. Friends who drew attention to the brain drain in the industry in recent years. This has happened under both Conservative and Labour Governments. In 1966, the situation was particularly gloomy. The Report of the Society of British Aerospace Companies states that in 1966 about 1,345 personnel of the S.B.A.C. member groups went overseas or to foreign-owned companies based in this country. Most of them went to the United States and United States firms in this country. The reasons which are given are, first, wages and conditions and, secondly, disquiet about the future of the aircraft industry in this country. The other reasons for people leaving are very minor compared with these. These are two important aspects and they deserve far more attention than they get.
We must, therefore, ensure that there are incentives to people to stay in this country, depending on the money available to aircraft workers to ensure that they get what they are worth in relation to other forms of national endeavour. We must ensure that the Government can give the continuity and security and assurances which are essential to an aircraft industry which is to prosper. No one can doubt that the ups and downs of the industry have been due largely to the uncertainty which prevailed over many years. However, no Government can be expected to make good in 33 months the damage which has been done over many years by its predecessors.
The Plowden Report on the aircraft industry made at least six recommendations which deserve our attention. They included the need for European collaboration on a wide range of products; concentration on projects whose costs were not disproportionate to the market; purchase from the United States only when other markets could not provide the needs; and improved machinery in Government and industry to manufacture and sell and to sustain the export drive. In the latter case, we note with some pleasure that aerospace exports to America are in the highest category. Those points made by the Plowden Report should be borne in mind. We should not overlook the fact that there should be far more public control in the aircraft industry, as the Report suggests.
When we talk about projects, whether major or otherwise, we cannot ignore the technical spin-off which comes from a strong aerospace industry, an industry which always ought to be making demands, which should always be pushing back the frontiers of technology, making demands on management, scientists, technicians and engineers and demanding new techniques which can be used in civil ways as well and forcing the pace for the future. In all these things we recognise that there must be partnership between the Government, the industry and all concerned in ensuring that our aircraft industry has a good future.
We ought also to remember, however, that in addition to any military spending which is considered necessary, we should be doing all that we can to deploy our rather limited resources of manpower,

money and materials in civil fields in particular. Thanks to the Government, we are giving a lead in this way in machine tools, computers, hovercraft and other science-based projects. Our Ministers can tell a story which is most encouraging in all those directions as a result of the policies which we are now pursuing but about which we hear very little.
The Royal Aeronautical Society, of which I am a member, has recently put forward to the Government a memorandum recommending certain changes. It calls for an organisation within the Ministry of Defence which would assess the extent to which our national needs can be fulfilled from wholly British production, from products built in collaboration with other countries in Europe and products purchased from abroad but with British participation. I am encouraged to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has set up a group in his Ministry to concentrate on these points.
Those are some of the matters which must be borne in mind if our industry is to play its part in world affairs. It ill becomes the Opposition tonight to use this occasion, which is in no way the responsibility of the Government, to put forward party points. The Opposition should be taking the opportunity, as some of my hon. Friends are doing, of putting forward points concerned with technology, science and management, recognising that it is a partnership of Government, Opposition and industry which, in the end, will result in our designers, engineers and management making the contribution that they should be making in the world of the future.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) rightly said that it takes something like eight years to design, develop and bring to the production stage a new aircraft project. It is in that context that we should view the censure Motion which has been tabled by the Conservatives.
We are not talking about the expenditure of large sums of public money, as, unfortunately, we have done in the past on some of these occasions. I understand that only about £2 million has gone into the studies which we have undertaken


jointly with the French. While everyone would agree that the cancellation is most regrettable and leaves a gap which the Minister of Defence must do his utmost to fill as speedily as possible, we are not talking about something which will place enormous burdens on the taxpayer or which cannot be corrected in time to meet the operational requirement, which will not arise until 1975.
Therefore, the Conservative censure Motion is not a very useful one because it does not make suggestions about how we should employ the eight years which the hon. Member for Newark has mentioned to equip the Royal Air Force with the kinds of aircraft that it will need in the 1970s. Indeed, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman said this afternoon that he would not make any suggestions about this. That was what he said in a number of other aviation debates. Although the Opposition cannot be expected to go into the same amount of detail as the Government of the day, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, not having access to the papers in the Ministry of Defence, it is up to us at least to state the sort of principles on which we believe that our aircraft procurement policy should be based.
I would like to point to the contrast between the Opposition Motion, which is entirely negative, and the constructive suggestions which the Liberal Party put forward in their Amendment. Although you did not select it for debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that that is no reflection on the merits of the Motion, with which a good many hon. Members on both sides, if they were to leave party politics out of account, would find themselves in hearty agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Not only is that true, but there is nothing to preclude the hon. Member from talking about his Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I am gratified to hear you say that, Mr. Speaker, because I had intended to do so.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said that the Conservatives had welcomed the AFVG and wanted it to succeed but that, at the same time, he would be critical of the Government for putting all their eggs into one

international project. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are many other projects which are going ahead satisfactorily. There is no doubt about their viability and the future work that they will give to the British aircraft industry. There are the Spey Comet, for example, and the Harrier, two wholly British projects, as well as the Jaguar and the joint helicopter projects which we have with the French.
In the short term, therefore, as the Minister rightly said, there is nothing which need cause workers in the British aircraft industry any anxiety. I underline again that we have plenty of time in which to make up our minds on which projects they should be working to meet the requirements of the middle 1970s.
I noticed in that connection that the right hon. Member for Mitcham either was not able or did not feel it expedient to answer my question about whether an aircraft to replace the AFVG should have a Far Eastern rôle. This is critical, because it could make a substantial difference to the operational requirement. I hope that when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) winds up the debate for the Opposition he will give us the benefit of his guidance about this, because in other debates and at Tory Party conferences he has expressed views on Britain's policy east of Suez with which I and my hon. Friends find ourselves in wholehearted agreement, although I am not sure that they commend themselves to the rest of his colleagues on the Tory Front Bench.
We in the Liberal Party have always considered that Anglo-European collaboration on aircraft is the only substitute for complete domination by the United States. Therefore, our attitude can be summed up in the following three complementary points. First, highly sophisticated aircraft like the TSR2 cannot be produced by Britain alone for purely British requirements. Hence the Liberal Party approved the cancellation of the TSR2 last year as being inevitable in the context of the very sophisticated requirements that we would need in the mid-1970s.
Secondly, however, purchases of American aircraft must be kept down to


an absolute minimum, otherwise there will no longer be a viable British aircraft industry. That was why we opposed the purchase of the American Hercules, because we considered at the time that the need could well be met by the British aircraft industry. That was not nearly such a sophisticated aircraft as the TSR2. Indeed, it might well have been met by some kind of co-operation with our friends in Europe. I always think that it was a pity that we did not buy the Transall. This may subsequently have affected the attitude of some of our potential partners in Europe.
Thirdly, we say that joint projects like fie AFVG must be vigorously supported. There is no disguising the fact that cancellation of this aircraft will leave a gap, even though I am convinced that it was right for the Secretary of State for Defence to go on trying until the very last moment. I am not sure what the Opposition would have had us do. Do they consider that it would have been desirable for us to order more than 50 FIIIs? Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will answer that question when he winds up for the Opposition.
The Tories never criticised the decision to buy the AFVG. Only now do they appear to be saying that, instead of waiting until the French cancelled it, we should have gone behind their backs and begun negotiations with the Germans, Dutch, and so on, even before M. Messmer had been told by his colleagues that he could no longer proceed with the aircraft. That would have been utterly dishonest. If international negotiations are to be conducted on the basis that, while trying to ca-operate with one partner, we should take out an insurance policy by going secretly to another, no one on the Continent will have any faith in the honesty of the British Government.

Mr. R. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to put words in my mouth which I never uttered. I did not suggest secret negotiations. It was the Government who said that contingency planning had got to such an advanced stage that, in the unfortunate event of cancellation of the AFVG, they would immediately be able to tell us what the alternatives were.

Mr. Lubbock: I thought that the Secretary of State had explained what the alternative was today. I am asking the right hon. Member for Mitcham if he thinks—because it was implied in his remarks—that, instead of awaiting the decision of the French Government, we should have gone secretly and negotiated with the Germans, Dutch, Italians and any other potential partners we might like to get in with now. If that is his view, I say to him that international negotations could not be conducted on a basis which any of our European partners would accept, and it would make nonsense of the whole idea, which I am sure he agrees is necessary, that our requirements should be met by co-operation in this way.
We shall need a strike/reconnaissance, aircraft for a European rôle in the mid-1970s, and I want to underline the expression "European" because we believe that there is no rôle for the United Kingdom east of Suez in the mid-1970s, even if there is still a continuing rôle in the next few years while we make alternative arrangements with our Far Eastern allies.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that an outward-looking Europe might have a rôle east of Suez, with the danger of China?

Mr. Lubbock: I have not found support for that rôle in any European country. They take a more sensible view on these matters and consider that, even for a more united Europe than we have today, it will not be possible in the mid-1970s to interfere and act in a semi-colonial manner in various parts of Asia and the Far East. It does not do us any good. It does not help our trade or our image with these nations in the Far East for them to think that we have a tutelary rôle, even though we are no longer in direct control.

Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify, for my benefit at least, what he means when he says that we need a strike/reconnaisance aircraft suitable for operations in a European environment in the mid-1970s? What is a European environment, and against whom does he consider that such a plane would be directed?

Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to explain how


such an aircraft might be slightly different if it is considered for a purely European rôle, as opposed to operating in the Far East as well.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and one other hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether the aircraft to fill this role ought to be a swing-wing type. There is a danger that we have come to accept automatically that it should be, because all the alternatives which have been canvassed so far are of this design. We talk about the possibility of getting more F111s or of a purely British swing-wing aircraft for which a design study is being undertaken at the moment. Another possibility is a joint venture with the Germans, which again would be variable geometry. Then there is talk of collaboration with McDonell on a swing-wing Phantom.
Clearly, it would be desirable, if it is economically possible, for Britain to possess the technology, just as it would be desirable to have the capability of launching large satellites or building a Mach 3 passenger transport.
The project study which the Secretary of State for Defence has initiated may show that a variable geometry aircraft is beyond the resources of this country if we are to contain the defence budget below any level which the people will accept. It may turn out that all the choices which I have mentioned are prohibitively expensive, including the purely British one, and that, when the Government reconsider the operational requirement in the light of our present defence policy, a variable geometry wing is unnecessary for the more limited rôle which we see in a purely European environment.
The advantages of variable geometry are twofold. The first is that it combines a good take-off and landing performance with a very high top speed of well over Mach 2. Secondly, it provides for a greater range aircraft with a given all-up weight.
I am not convinced that these characteristics would be necessary if we considered a purely European rôle. Therefore, there could be a danger of our incurring huge R and D costs by failing to question closely the military justification for very sophisticated requirements.

That is exactly what happened with TSR2. We allowed the military people to upgrade the specification it went beyond the resources of our defence budget.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my second and more important point. Has he any country in mind at whom this aircraft might be directed?

Mr. Lubbock: As has been said by other hon. Gentlemen, to try and foresee who the potential enemy might be when such an aircraft comes into service in 1975 would require the sort of crystal ball which no one in the House possesses. We are trying to consider what sort of military operations there would be, and I am saying that I do not envisage this country undertaking any warlike operations outside the Continent of Europe by that date. So it is not necessary to specify who such an enemy might be in order to decide the operational requirements.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no wish to prevent interventions, but they do prolong speeches, and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Lubbock: I realise that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not be too long.
The alternatives which have been mentioned are, first, the variable geometry Phantom. As I understand it, this would give us very little R. and D. work. The only advantage to be derived from it is that we could continue to produce Spey engines, as we are doing already. From the point of view of keeping the design staffs busy, it would not benefit the country at all.
The second alternative is the purely British project which I suspect will turn out to be too expensive, although I have no objection to the Secretary of State initiating the study.
Third, there is the possibility of collaborating with the Germans. As has been mentioned, they, too, have budgetary difficulties, and we should bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian that many German firms are tied up with the American aircraft


industry, and they might not wish to enter into conflicting arrangements with Great Britain.
Fourth, there is the possibility of buying more F111s. In my opinion, this would be the worst alternative. It would jeopardise still further the prospects for European co-operation. There are those who suggest that buying 50 of them instead of the Mirage IV/Spey, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and I advocated at the time, caused the French to think that we were not interested in further Anglo-European collaboration. Another argument against it is that if we bought the F111 it would give no work to the British aircraft industry. I do not think that it was seriously suggested that we could build it industrially because the quantities required were too small.
If we are to buy another 50 the same argument will apply. We would have a great burden on our balance of payments which would do nothing to help the British aircraft industry. Perhaps worst of all it would leave us out in the cold from the point of view of the capability of producing any VG aircraft.
I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in his speech to the European Assembly at Strasbourg. I cannot remember the exact words, but he spoke of the danger of Great Britain becoming a sort of industrial helotry in which we produced the less sophisticated equipment while all the advanced technology is done across the Atlantic on our behalf. The production of additional F111s would worsen the potentiality that he foresaw.
I hope that there will not be any recriminations against the French Government because of their decision. One hon. Gentleman opposite made some recriminations in this connection, but I remind him that the Jaguar is going extremely well. There is a far better design agreement than there was with the Concord, and we have made quite a lot of progress in the machinery of international collaboration on this plane. For example, in the Concord one had a number of different committees both industrial and Governmental.
With the Jaguar there is a much simpler arrangement. There is a joint company known as Sepecat, organised between B.A.C. and Breguet. This shows

the way in which we can go forward on other projects. We have the helicopters, and what has not been mentioned, but which could be potentially important, is the agreement between Beagle and Sud Aviation on the development of light aircraft.
My hon. Friends and I want to see the Government continue to pursue a policy of European collaboration which we think is essential in the long term for the preservation of the British aircraft industry. We regret the decision which has been taken, but we think that in the eight years between now and when the strike reconnaissance aircraft comes into service to meet the needs of the Royal Air Force, we have plenty of time to make an alternative decision.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attacked the Tories' efforts to provide us with exclusive aircraft models throughout the years ahead, he certainly carried me with him. They had a series of expensive policies. My only trouble is when my right hon. Friend turns to the other argument and says, "After all, this was only a development of your idea which you are criticising". I think that it was a very bad idea. I believe that this whole idea of developing an aircraft industry with the French was fundamentally a bad idea. I remember one manufacturer saying to me, "It is bad enough to work for one Government. To work for two is ruddy impossible". When I heard my right hon. Friend telling us what happened to the varying specifications for this aeroplane, I thought that he made the point for my manufacturing friend.

Mr. Healey: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will accept that the smooth running of our joint project on the Jaguar makes the point in the opposite direction equally well.

Mr. Paget: I shall come to the Jaguar in a moment. I am not as optimistic as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
I was in Paris last November, and all my friends in the aviation industry told me then that the AFVG would not materialise. None of them seemed to have any doubt about that at all. During


the debate on the Air Estimates I said, in column 318, that this plane would not materialise, and that it would be cancelled, for reasons which had not emerged at that time.
I would like for a moment to consider what we have lost. I do not think that research and development would have come out at less than £250 million. It had gone up to £240 million, and more was to come. With regard to the time of development, I doubt whether we would have seen it in service before 1978. The requirement was for 300 as a maximum, and the cost, including the research and development, would have worked out at very little under £3 million a plane.
What would we have got for that? We would have got a plane which was inferior to the F111. It would have been smaller, which means that it would carry a smaller load, and have a smaller range, because the two things are interchangeable. As a strike aircraft, it would have been subsonic. It would not have had the swivelling pylon, which would have meant its going subsonic until it got rid of its bombs. Thus, there would have been an inferior F111, 10 years late, at as big a price. This was not built-in obsolescence. It was pre-natal obsolescence, and it did not seem surprising to me that the French would not got on with it.
We are told that consideration is being given to going on with this venture with another partner. Heaven help us if we go in for developing a nuclear bomber with the Germans. I think that the effect on our foreign affairs policy would be difficult if we went in for that. Apart from that, however, this idea of going on with this plane seems to me to be a dead duck before it is even hatched.
I come now to the "choppers", which we are to develop jointly with the French. I take an intensely pessimistic view of this idea. We are committed to 100 of the SA330s, which are inferior in performance and load-carrying capability to the S61 Sikorsky, which we can build here on licence. But in any case we are developing a generation behind, because the future helicopter will be the rigid rotor, which is a big breakthrough. The development of the hot cycle, with the heat taken back through the rotors, will give helicopters a speed of 300 miles an hour, which is about double the speed

of those which we are developing. Because we are committed to this arrangement with the French, we seem to be committed to an inferior machine.
Breguet and B.A.C. are working together on a strike trainer, and so far apparently the specification has not been juggled about. It is a Mach 1·7 plane to train people to fly at well over Mach 2. On the other hand, there is the Mirage F, with a speed of Mach 2·2, and the Northrop 530, with a speed of mach 2·4. Northrop 530, with a speed of Mach 2·4. European partner. They produced a plane at the same price, but again we are shackled to the French for an inferior plane.
Finally, we come to the daddy of them all, the Concord. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did his best to cancel this aircraft, and it is a financial tragedy that he did not succeed. Let us consider what is to happen to the Concord. Research and development at £500 million is to go up another £50 million if we are to get a production of three per month which is wanted. Another £20 million has to be put on, and the cost will not come out at less than £650 million.
What do we get at the end? We get an aircraft of Mach 2·1 or 2·2, with a carrying capacity, across the Atlantic, of 124. There is a porpoise close behind us, in the form of a Boeing. That will fly at Mach 2.7 and will have a carrying capacity of 350. That will be there by 1975. We believe that the Concord will go into service in the 1972 season. Let us consider the cost. We have spent about £70 million on it already and we shall probably spend another £580 million. Have the French and ourselves, between us, anything like enough draughtsmen and other people to be able to cover a research and development programme of that size in that time?
It means a capacity to spend about £130 million a year. On the TSR2 it took us six years at maximum effort to spend that amount. Why do we suddenly think that we can get this tremendous advance? I do not think that the capacity is there. I think that we shall see the date going further and further back, while that of the Boeing, much more advanced and powerful, gets nearer and nearer.
Then there is the boom problem, which will affect the market. If it is acceptable over land we may sell 160, but if it is not we shall be lucky to sell 60. If we sell 100, what will the costs be? They will involve about £6½ million on research and development per aircraft, and another £10 million plus on production. We shall be lucky to sell these aircraft at £7 million each, so we are to sell the aircraft at a loss of £8 million or £9 million per plane. This will make groundnuts look like the bargain basement of financial disasters.
I do not believe that our aviation industry or any other has a future unless it is prepared to go into partnership with the great Power, namely, America. As I see it, the future of our aircraft industry lies in our going into partnership with the Americans, who have the resources to develop aircraft of the next generation instead of the last generation—which is what we are doing—and who have the market for those aircraft.
Of course we should be junior partners, but we should be fully employed junior partners. There is a great requirement. The Americans are pushing research and development to capacity. They would use every bit of research and development capacity that we have if we went into partnership with them. The whole thing would be spread and worked and organised. We should be fully employed. We should be junior partners, as British Timken are junior partners of Timken of America. It is a highly effective enterprise and of enormous advantage to my constituents. This is the only kind of future for the British aircraft industry.
As for defence requirements—first, we should not replace the AFVG. It does not fit into the picture of the kind of Power that we are. The production of 300 aircraft at a cost of £3 million each is not economic unless the aircraft are nuclear bombers. The damage which we could do with them is disproportionately small to the damage that we would receive because of the vulnerability of that kind of aircraft.
Secondly, independence defence capacity does not depend on having exclusive models built for oneself by oneself. Israel displayed a certain amount of independent defence capacity without

an aircraft industry. It is defence folly to demand tailor-made equipment for this country. It is not only in the women's dress trade that an exclusive model is disproportionately expensive. At this point we ought to shop off the shelf. We ought to consider our defence requirements and buy where the right things are available.
Curiously enough, this has been the policy of the Marine Corps of America. That provides an extremely good example for us. The Marine Corps has a manpower of about 280,000—about 30,000 less than our combined Army and Royal Air Force. It has far more teeth than our combined Army and R.A.F. It has more aircraft. It has 1,200 operational aircraft, mainly Phantoms. We have a good deal fewer than that. Our attack aircraft number about 450 and are still mostly Canberras and Hunters. The Marine Corps has more lift. It has 250 Hercules, whereas we have a mixed bag of larger-weight carriers of about 100. The Marine Corps has many more and far more effective helicopters.
But the budget of the Marine Corps is only one-third of our defence budget. The Marine Corps has always taken the view that it should never specify. It says, "We will take what arms we can get. We are not going to ask for anything to be developed for us." I think that we should adopt that view.
I take another example from Israel. On mobilisation, in three days she put 270,000 men in the field, with astonishing success and a brilliant victory. Israel's military budget is £150 million a year—one-sixteenth of ours. I wish that we could put up the same kind of performance. Broadly speaking, we have been wandering round the world battered and humiliated. We must reconsider our whole defence policy. We must realise that we are no longer in the top class. We are no longer the kind of chaps who have tailor-made clothes, or special exclusive models. We should wait until the other people have done the developing—which is what the big chaps have to do—and then buy on the cheapest market according to our requirements. We shall not make sense of this programme until we have got that kind of policy.

7.48 p.m

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has made a gloomy and pessimistic speech. As always, I listened to him with interest. I have a horrid suspicion that he has been listening to Mr. Worcester. Perhaps I am wrong, but, if, by any chance, that supposition is true, I cannot resist recommending the hon. and learned Member to study the address given by Mr. Worcester to the Aeronautical Society not long ago—not so much for what it contained but for the replies and discussion afterwards, which was terminated rather prematurely by Mr. Worcester.
At the time Mr. Worcester,. I remember, was recommending that the aircraft industry should engage on such projects as two-way radio in a finger ring; river pollution and "a sort of Archimedes screw bicycle". These are interesting ideas but they are somewhat far from reality. I fear that some of the hon. and learned Member's propositions—I have always had the greatest respect for what he says in any speech—are equally unreal. He was saying that we have no hope in Europe and should simply tag along behind the Americans in what he called a partnership.
This is a euphemism. I have no prejudice against a true aviation partnership with the Americans any more than I have against one with the French or anyone else, provided it will pay us, but that means that we must have our fair share of voting, executive and design control. It must be built around British airframes as well as American. Our experience to date of co-operation with the Americans—I do not blame them; alas they are often more hard-headed than we in their matters—has shown no willingness to develop such a partnership, so the House should not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion is the only future for the British aircraft industry. It would be a sad day if it were.
Now I turn to the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence. The Secretary of State is very fond of the word "trounce". He said the other day that he had "trounced" one of my right hon. Friends and today put forward the

obvious proposition that we would be "trounced" in the Lobbies, and also said that he had already trounced my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for a speech which he has not yet made; we can judge that when the time comes. However, I am afraid the only institution which, at the end of the day, has been "trounced" by the right hon. Gentleman is the British aircraft industry.
He said nothing to encourage me to think that there will be much of a turn for the better. There have been some constructive and interesting speeches by hon. Members opposite, and they have been in marked contrast to the sort of bombastic nonsense to which we were subjected by the Secretary of State, and which was no answer to the devastating attack by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).
This trouble dates from the Government's original cancellations when they came to power. They have since advanced rationalisation for these, but anyone connected with the industry knows that they cancelled first and thought afterwards. All the rationalisation has been post facto. The Plowden Committee to inquire into the industry was set up after they had written off every military project. It is the result of this record which we are debating.
With the possible exception of the P1127, the Harrier, there is nothing in the military field of technological significance. In civil aviation, the programme is notoriously unsteady and in space our record compared with that of our obvious competitors is contemptible. I am glad that at least the right hon. Gentleman did not give us all the figures which he trotted out last time, and this is understandable, as there is nothing any longer with which to compare the projects he has cancelled. For two years or more we have been chasing—I say this advisedly—a mirage.
This miserable record stemmed from ignorance, prejudice and irresponsibility in the field of aviation; the blame rests primarily with the Prime Minister and the hatchet man, the present Home Secretary, but to a large measure now with the Secretary of State. He has been caught out for three main reasons—first, because he failed to see the long-term


military and commercial significance of the programme which he inherited, second, because he accepted the conclusions, together with the military implications, of the Plowden Report, an ill-prepared, ill-digested and amateur exercise, and, third, because he had made our defence policy and the aircraft industry dependent on foreign design and manufacture through the vast purchase of American aircraft and through his naïve conception of European co-operation.
The right hon. Gentleman waded into contracts without checking whether there was compatibility of requirement, as the inn. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out tellingly. The Government have exercised no hard business sense in this co-operation and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the hard-headed advice which the industry has been giving him for the industry has been giving him to my knowledge for years, certainly for more than one, over this project.
Our first guiding principle should he to establish and work from a position of strength. This is big business: it is not dreamland. We must establish, second, that there is a real mutual requirement with our prospective partner and, third, that the project is economic in world terms and saleable.
But this Government have hawked the British aviation industry around Europe, giving away advantage after advantage. We held a 10-year lead over the Europeans which has been whittled away by the French in particular until they have outpaced us in a number of technologies. The Secretary of State is largely responsible for these misjudgments and the results are grave indeed. There is yet another crisis in our air defence capacity and in our technological advance.
Why did the French cancel? Was it really for financial reasons? Finance for the French in aviation is a matter of priorities as it is for us, though they give it higher priority than do the British Government. But I doubt whether finance was the sole or even the main reason. Compatibility of requirement certainly played a part, but there is another factor. In announcing the cancellation and again in his speech today, the Secretary of State said that he had

been given assurances that the French did not intend to develop an aeroplane called the Mirage G. I am sure that he did not intend to mislead us or think that he was, but we must examine this proposition, because it demonstrates an extraordinary innocence and naïvety.
This aeroplane is produced by M. Dassault, who has, I guess, put into the research and development of the programme to date about £12 million. This variable geometry aeroplane is on the tarmac now, and is due for a first flight in a few days. It is a fact, not an "option" or a drawing. M. Dassault, as anyone connected with the French industry will appreciate, is a prudent and powerful man. He is very intimate with General de Gaulle, of whom he has been a close friend for many years. Why should he have put £12 million into a project of this kind, in the same technology and rolled out the week before the AFVG was cancelled?
Is it really true that nothing can be done with it and that this is only a flight test vehicle? I doubt it. The French can do four things with it. If they put in the Secma TF306 engine, it will meet the naval requirements. If they give it a twin-engined configuration, it will suit the Armée de L'Air. If they put in an Atar engine, it would be a serviceable interceptor and with a stretched Atar it would raise the top speed from Mach 2·5 to Mach 3. This also could be a serviceable operational aircraft. Finance for any of these modifications would be a big factor, but I suggest that if it were a question of priorities, then the priority is much more likely to have fallen on the side of the Mirage G than on the AFVG. And there goes the core of the British aircraft industry.
I come to what should be done in the light of the cancellation. I think that the Secretary of State was entirely justified in hinting that the F104 replacement is a target of which we should not lose sight. This is of the greatest importance at the moment because of the existence of a project in Europe, to which allusion has been made, in which the Germans and Americans are engaged together and which might fit the requirement. As my right hon. Friend


the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) said, there are 1,200 to 1,400 of the F104s flying in N.A.T.O.—five or six N.A.T.O. countries have them—and the aircraft is due to be replaced about 1974
I am almost sure that any British AFVG project into which the Government may now decide to enter, as a result of their project studies, would be flying before the German and American project could do so. If I am wrong, perhaps I could be corrected at the end of the debate. But on the basis of my knowledge, I think that this is very much a starter. As many hon. Members know, N.A.T.O. strategy is one of response at all levels. The present F104 is capable of tactical nuclear and conventional strike, visual identification and an interceptor rôle. It seems to me that this is what we should go for, if we can, with a VG aircraft if we start now.
There are three competitors. The first, I suppose it might be suggested, is the F111, which would meet this requirement, but it is much heavier than the AFVG, if our own design is anything like the present AFVG design. In fact, that design is less than half the weight of the F111, which was designed for another requirement altogether. Secondly, there is the fateful Mirage G, which surely also could be made into a serviceable F104 replacement. In this regard, however, France is outside N.A.T.O. and we ought to stand a better chance on that ground. Thirdly, there is the project to which I have referred in which the Federal Republic of Germany is involved—the advanced variable sweep, as it is known, in which Entwicklungs Ring (Sud) and Fairchild are engaged. I understand that funding is due again in September of this year.

Mr. Lubbock: And the swing-wing Phantom.

Mr. Hastings: I will accept that from the hon. Gentleman—possibly the Phantom.
We ought at least to consider going to the Germans with a design for an F104 replacement, which might well involve modifications from the original AFVG design, on the basis that they joined us in manufacture and, secondly, on the basis that the German-American project is

scrapped. This could still be the basis of a European aircraft industry and of important collaboration. It is an important factor in the proposition that we could probably have our own plane flying and in service before the German-American plane.
I should like to offer a second reflection to the House on the choice before us now that the AFVG has been cancelled. One or two hon. Members have mentioned the Israeli war, and I do not think that any nation can possibly afford to disregard it in the context of air defence. The Israeli Air Force destroyed 300 to 400 aircraft in a pre-emptive strike in a matter of an hour or two. How was this done? Apparently it was done, first, by the use of an ingenious bomb of their own with which they destroyed the runways. They then destroyed the dispersed aircraft by strafing.
It is, I think, significant, that apparently no Arab aircraft—or virtually none—got off the ground once the attack had started. It may be that the aircraft were not adequately dispersed. It has been reported that the Egyptian aircraft were lined up ready to be strafed, but even if another air force had been in their position and had been better dispersed, it seems to me that with the runways destroyed it is doubtful whether many aircraft would have got into the air.
The justification, therefore, for VTO is absolute. That is not new to us in this country. Again, to come back to my premise, the Hawker P1154 would have been the one aircraft in the world—had it not been cancelled—which would have been capable of coping with a pre-emptive strike of that kind.
May I conclude with a few words about our attitude in this country to aviation. I believe that there is a real danger that the aviation industry will become nothing more than an American garage. I am sure that the French have caught and passed us in certain respects—and the reason is simple: the French have a Government which is basically patriotic in the terms in which I understand that. They have a fundamental belief in buying French wherever possible and a fundamental belief in advanced technology and the need to support aviation by any means they can.


In this country over the last two years one could reasonably claim that we have suffered from the exact opposite.
The arguments advanced by the Government and confirmed by Plowden are, first, that we should buy major military aircraft off the shelf because the home market is so limited and, secondly, that the only way to increase the market base is through European co-operation. But the first argument can be applied to any advanced technological product. It is exactly the same for British turbo-alternators or British generating stations or British computers. We have a relatively small home market, and if we get out of all advanced technological production and manufacture on the basis of this argument, as the Government are getting us out of the aircraft industry, it will not be long before we shall simply be reduced to manufacturing plastic buckets and perambulators—out of the hunt altogether. This is the arena of power today, and we cannot afford to give up on that basis, because it is a false argument.
European co-operation depends on the certainty of the market, the viability of the requirements and the strength of the contract. We cannot force people to buy what they do not want to buy. Many people hold—perhaps some hon. Members hold—that the best way of organising co-operation is for us to specialise by types of aircraft rather than to split the work. The Government should at least be looking into that suggestion in the light of the failure which vie are debating.
International co-operation in my view is entirely sensible as a re-insurance, but not as a firm foundation for a successful aircraft industry. The French realise this clearly. Their investment in space i3 75 per cent. to their own industry and only 25 per cent. international, whereas in this country it is almost exactly the other way round—25 per cent. to our industry and 75 per cent. international. Surely in the light of the developments over the last week we can see a lesson here.
The consequences of this muddle and neglect of British aviation—not, perhaps, through intent; I am not suggesting that—through muddled thinking and the

wrong conclusions, are serious indeed. I am certainly not suggesting that everything was right before the Government came to power. The Secretary of State will accept that from me since I have written it as well as said it many times. But there was previously a disposition to support aviation and in the end there was a firm military programme of enormous international importance which he inherited.
I begin to feel that it will not be very long—perhaps not as long as many of my hon. Friends believe—before these responsibilities are again in our hands in the Conservative Party. I hope that when that time comes it will not be too late, that we shall salvage something out of this mess, and that we shall be able to rebuild an aircraft industry of which we may be as proud as people abroad are proud of the achievements of our competitors.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), whose expertise and knowledge of the industry I admire. I thought him a little less than fair in his strictures of the Government, particularly when he claimed that they were not defending the interests of the British aviation industry.
Compare, for example, what has taken place in certain respects here with what has taken place in France, whose efforts he praised to the skies. Contrast the instruction given by the Government to B.E.A. not to buy American, but to buy British with Air France's purchase of the Boeing 727–200.
This debate is concerned with a decision made not by this Government, but by the French Government, who decided not to proceed with a joint project which everyone agreed was a good idea. This unfortunate and regrettable decision was taken by the other partner. We cannot bear responsibility for that decision. While one might attempt to show how we might have taken out an insurance policy against what happened, this decision was, clearly, not of our making. As a keen European, I regret what has occurred and I hope that we can continue to build on what has already been started in collaboration with various European countries.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire indulged in a good deal of recrimination. He referred to the P1154 and calmly forgot the P1127, the forerunner of the vertical take-off plane, which we had flying about eight years ago. Last week the Russians announced with a great fanfare that they had a new aircraft and they showed it flying. While its top speed might be superior to the P1127, it is only performing in a way which one of our planes did about eight years ago.
The amazing inability of hon. Gentlemen opposite to appreciate the great lead we had in this sphere and their inability straight away to order a production version of this aircraft meant that we did not have such an aircraft in service later on. Had they ordered a production version, we would probably have been selling these planes by now. Instead, we must depend on the present Government and their plans from October, 1964, to provide for our needs. The aircraft about which I spoke proved itself and if only the Conservative Government of the day had ordered a production run of P1127s things might have been very different.

Mr. Hastings: I would not like to confirm the hon. Gentleman's timing, but does he appreciate that the P1127 was a flight test version of the P1154, which was supersonic?

Mr. Howarth: I did not fully appreciate, this aeroplane having been developed so long ago, that it was not a sophisticated version. If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, he has certainly added to my knowledge.
Even today the United States, France and Germany—with the exclusion of Russia; so one would gather from the comments I have made about their recent announcement—do not have aircraft comparable with the vectored thrust of the P1127 type. A great opportunity was missed. It is to he regretted that Conservative leaders in the early 1960s did not undertake to develop this aircraft. We could have been benefiting now had they decided to order a production run.
Consider the effect of the cancellation of the AFVG project on the civil programme. I have particularly in mind the European airbus. There are those in the industry, as well as in Parliament, who

take the view that we might benefit on the airbus side from the fact that the French have hived off their commitment to the AFVG. It is suggested that more finance may be available to push ahead with the airbus. Others argue that the French action has brought possible Anglo-French collaboration to a degree of disillusionment which augurs ill for the development of the airbus.
I rank the airbus as a project which should have top priority as a joint project, with Germany included, on the basis that the national air lines will take it as part of their firm commitment. I hope that the airbus development will not be affected by the French decision to withdraw from the AFVG project.
Certain problems surround joint collaboration with other countries. There is a whole list of collaborative projects which we have with the French, starting with the Concord. I start with the Concord because I wish to start by attacking hon. Gentlemen opposite. For some time I have been concerned about our failure to get an equal share in bargaining with the French. I have made inquiries about these collaborative projects and particularly about who had the design leadership on the air frame side. I gather that, on the Concord, the French have the design leadership.
On the Jaguar project, the French also have the design leadership. I think it fair to say that in at least two out of the three helicopter projects the French also have the design leadership. I do not know who can claim the design leadership on the Martel project. Only this afternoon my right hon. Friend announced that the design leadership on the air frame side on the AFVG project was ours, but, unfortunately, this has now fallen by the wayside. Because of our commanding lead on the engine side, presumably the French were able to argue that they should have the leadership on the air frame side.
I hope—and I am thinking particularly of what, I trust, will be a successful European airbus project—that when we come to negotiate the next collaborative project, it will be stressed that we have the third largest aviation industry in the world, employing about 250,000 people—three or four times more than those employed in the Frnch industry—and


an industry which is many times larger than the German aviation industry. We can reasonably expect to contribute to such collaborative projects probably much more than we have with some of those I have listed.
I speak as an engineer, and realise that there may be some simple argument against, financial or otherwise, but I wonder whether it would not be possible to overcome national jealousies and pressures by encouraging the formation of a European aviation company to build a European airbus. I see the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) shaking his head: if I am wrong in what I say, I shall be glad to hear an explanation.

Sir William Robson Brown: I would only say that the money side is perfectly all right, but the clash, nationally, could be just the same—who should build what?

Mr. Howarth: I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I said that there might be a good reason why such a thing was not possible.
If we are to enter the Common Market, and so become part of a much larger Western European Union, we will inevitably see the development of European companies, and one wonders why, in this sphere where we already have collaborative projects, we could not, under the encouragement of the various Governments, see the beginning of genuine European cooperation.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and particularly with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who suggested that we should become a very junior partner of the United States of America. I firmly believe that we have an existing asset. It has been suggested that we should allow this asset to die away and turn our attention more to the marine side. It is suggested that it is to that aspect that the engineers and scientists of B.A.C. at Warton should be turning their attention and on which they should be spending their time, and not on developing defence projects.
It is not so simple, even within a period of years, to divert the work of scientists

designers, factories and all the rest to something of that kind. It cannot be done. Secondly, in asking the House what exactly we have obtained for the nation's great investment in the aviation industry, my hon. Friend put on one side of the account the industry's exports, and these are very important. But, on the same side, there remains the fact that while we are making our own aircraft we are not having to buy them from abroad, so we are saving on imports.

Mr. Dalyell: I know that my hon. Friend does not wish to misinterpret my argument. The dispute between us is simply that I believe that we can have a flourishing civil aircraft industry based especially on a cheap, safe, subsonic aircraft. I am also a very strong supporter of the airbus. I think that we can do this without having a military sophisticated flying machine on the industry's order books.

Mr. Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in this subject and I respect his views, but the two major aviation nations, apart from ourselves, have undoubtedly based their aviation industry on a very strong military segment. It may be argued that we cannot afford this and should, therefore, try to do without it, but to the best of my knowledge the major advances in aviation tend to be based on advances on the military side. Military requirements tend to be the stimulus for technological advance.
That may be regrettable, but I must say to some of my hon. Friends—and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was not necessarily one of them—that if they think that we can in some way avoid having to pay quite heavily for defence—Air Force, Navy and Army—they are flying in the face particularly of what we have seen in the last few months.
I am a keen European, and have advocated bringing our commitments as soon as possible within a European area—and by that I certainly include the Mediterranean—but no one can ignore the fact that there are today many more military dictatorships than democracies in the world, and that they represent a potential threat to our way of life. As long as that position remains, the responsibility


of this Government or any other Government is to ensure the safety of the people of these islands.
On that basis we cannot only regard the British aviation industry as the supplier of civil aircraft. We have to have an Air Force capable of defending us and our interests, at least within Europe and, I suggest, within the boundaries of the Mediterranean.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), for whom I have the greatest respect, spoke for about 50 minutes? Out of a sense of decency to those of us who are still waiting to get into the debate, might he not restrain his interruptions at least?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will bear in mind what has been said.

Mr. Howarth: I suppose it can be said that I am provoking my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. No doubt we could continue this later in the Tea Room.
By all means let us look at the new fields for advancement in technology which give a return to the human race, but do not let us do that over the corpse of the British aviation industry. We have an asset here into which we have poured thousands of millions over the years. Sometimes, it is true, there has been a doubful return, but we have great physical assets and ability in it. Let us not waste all that. This is one of the advanced technical industries. Provided that it can produce projects for which we can find a market, it is an industry which should be supported.
I again express regret about the inability of hon. Members to see that we are at the beginning of an air transport explosion. My children or my grandchildren, if I have any, would condemn me for not appreciating this. We should not look forward to a future in which we buy aircraft either from America or the Soviet Union. People will take to the air in increasing numbers; so, also, will

freight. The figures are there for everyone to see. For heaven's sake let us make sure that we have a viable, progressive, competent aviation industry which not only protects the security of the country, which is very important, but which enables us to maintain our standard of living on the basis of real export earnings.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East): It was refreshing to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) after the speeches of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and from the Government Front Bench. In the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, East I found much with which I agree.
I was particularly depressed when I heard the Secretary of State for Defence open his argument by suggesting that the last Conservative Government had run down our aircraft industry. He poured great scorn—he is very adept at that—on the fact that we had no supersonic aircraft. Yet, the first thing which the present Government did when they came into office was to cancel the 1154 and to concentrate on the 1127. They cancelled the supersonic version and concentrated on the smaller, less fast plane.
The hon. Member for Bolton, East spoke of the need to develop vertical take-off aircraft to give us a lead in this field. After the cancellations made by the party opposite, Britain lacks projects. I agree with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and by the hon. Member for Bolton, East about our need for a major aircraft industry. I do not want to develop my speech at too great length, because I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I am sure that he will follow his own advice.

Mr. Rankin: I shall have no alternative—that is, if I am called.

Mr. McMaster: I was about to say that I intend to speak shortly tonight, but I am afraid that I might be misconstrued.
After the cancellation of the tactical strike and reconnaissance plane, the TSR2, which was the crowning folly of


the Labour Government, there was the cancellation of the HS681, a transport aircraft. I agree with the last point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, East that, with transport developing in the world, we should be producing a heavy freight aircraft, instead of relying on old-fashioned planes like the Hercules. I speak with feeling here, because I believe t lat the Belfast, which has caused a lot of trouble for Short Brothers and Harlands, because the firm paid for all its development costs, could have been used for a tactical rôle in place of some of the older Hercules which, I believe, are having quite a bit of trouble at the moment and which are not such good planes as the improved Belfast.
Whether or not Britain goes ahead and develops a variable geometry aircraft, we should take advantage of our great lead in vertical take-off. This country has developed two types of vertical take-off plane. As far back as 1958, almost ten years ago, the first vertical take-off plane, the multi-jet SC1, flew successfully at Farnborough. A year or two later it completed the transition from vertical to forward flight and back again. It was followed by the 1127, the deflective type jet. One of these aircraft should be used for the development of a supersonic jet aircraft. This might prove as useful in the future as a variable sweep plane.
Mention was made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton of the success of the Israelis in their recent campaign. That success was based on the Net that they were able to immobilise the enemy before he could get into the air. This type of aircraft is a vertical take-off aircraft which would be able to disperse. Any field behind any farm would be able to carry it. It would be the complete answer to the surprise attack which has been much practised in the past and which the Israelis perfected only a month ago.
I support the plea which was made for better salesmanship. We have a need for the type of salesmanship that Henry I. Cuss has been able to develop—arms salesmanship—for the benefit of the Americans. We have bought Phantoms. We have a very big order for F111s with the United States. What has happened to the offsetting sales of British arms and equipment? How much of these are we now losing as a result of the Middle East

troubles? Shall we ever set off the 2,000 million dollars worth of purchases from the United States?

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: No.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry, but I have not time to develop this point further. I feel strongly about it. I should like to hear it mentioned in the winding up speech. This country must have a strong aircraft industry, not only because we are an air-minded generation; not only because we must provide aircraft, both civil and military, but also because of the great technological fall-out from producing these aircraft, because of the benefits which accrue, such as to my own part of the country, of apprenticeship schemes which are sponsored by the aircraft companies, and be cause of the advances in metallurgy, miniaturisation, electronics and control system. There are all these factors, which benefit the whole of our industry, not to mention prestige.
I see that the Minister of Technology has returned to the Chamber and before I sit down I should like to say something, about the recent developments affecting Short Bros. & Harland. I have in my constituency, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House know, a company which was one of the forerunners of aircraft manufacture. Its history goes back to the last century, because it was in 1898 when this company was first founded and started manufacturing balloons. It has pioneered many different forms of flight. Mention has been made of variable geometry. The first variable geomentry aircraft was produced by Short Bros. It started aircraft production in 1909—before the First World War. It produced, before the First World War, a folding-wing aircraft and, after the war, a multi-engined aircraft. It manufactured the first aircraft to land on the deck of a warship, the first torpedo carrier, and the first folding-wing aircraft. In 1919 it produced the first all-metal stressed skin aircraft.
The company is mainly known for its work between the wars on the Short Sunderland, but it has pioneered many other types of aviation, including vertical take-off. It produced the most successful missile seller for this country abroad, the Seacat, on which there is an inquiry into


costs at the moment. I should like to know what the Minister of Technology is about in this respect. I asked him on Tuesday during Question Time what the result of this inquiry would be and he gave me a completely misleading and erroneous answer which I did not understand because he did not answer the question. It is there for all to see in HANSARD for Tuesday. The answer does not meet the point that I raised. This inquiry into the costs of the Seacat missile can only reflect to the detriment of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and its costing officers and of those persons in the company, of which he owns 70 per cent. of the shares and for which he also has a certain responsibility. It can only reflect damagingly on the whole of the aircraft industry and our export programme. What will the Governments of the 11 foreign navies buying the Seacat think of the suggestion that perhaps this missile has been sold at too high a price? Will they ask for part of their money back?
The Minister of Technology has announced that he intends to appoint a new Chairman. Although he was generous in his replies to Questions, I cannot understand this announcement. He has admitted that he has no replacement in mind. The present Chairman has, in the past six years, built up this company in Northern Ireland in the face of the greatest difficulties. Despite the difficulties facing our entire aircraft industry he has managed to keep together a production and design team in Belfast, and this is no small achievement.
The right hon. Gentleman himself, in reply to a question at the end of Question Time on Tuesday, referred to the order book of Short's, to the sub-contract work on the Phantom, to the co-operation with Europe, which he himself advocates on the Fokker F28 and F228, and to expansion in the sales of the Skyvan both to Australia and America. All these things were pioneered, piloted and fostered by this Chairman, who is leaving Short's with its fullest order book for years. Why is he leaving? Many hon. Gentlemen will have read the first leader in The Times today on this subject. I will not weary the House by repeating it, but I agree entirely with the sentiments there expressed. I think that this can only do

a great deal of harm to morale and confidence in the company and, indeed, in the aircraft industry as a whole.
If the Government were to take shares in the aircraft industry, as they have shares in Short's, who will they find in future to take over control of companies like this? The Chairmen of nationalised industries, including the Air Corporations, over the past five or six year have a rather unfortunate history. They are replaced very quickly, and I include British Railways in this. If this is the type of irresponsible way in which the Government are to behave towards the chairmen of important industries, it can only damage the industries themselves
I should like the Minister to pay some attention in his reply to the future of this company in my constituency. It can do excellent design and production work and it is not sufficient for it simply to work on sub-contract work, valuable as that is, on planes like the Fokker aircraft and the Phantom. Our aircraft industry as a whole must have freedom to design and develop new aircraft. We could do with a little more money being put into vertical take-off and Short's have a very good claim for a share in the design and production. This is one way in which this company which is doing valuable work in Northern Ireland can help to share in an expanding and lively aircraft industry in Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Rankin.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I have waited a long time to hear those two magic words. They have come somewhat late in these proceedings, but they are none the less welcome.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Never give up hope.

Mr. Rankin: I never give up hope.

Mr. Spriggs: I have.

Mr. Rankin: It springs eternal in the human breast. It flourishes without external assistance, because I have not left this Chamber today and so my desire for one or two things is becoming more acute as time passes.
The only trouble was when I discovered that I was following my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster)


I think that we can call one another hon. Friends—whose interests I have often made my own. However, I recollected another occasion when I followed him when, because of his wonderful Irish eloquence, I was so fascinated, just as fascinated as he was, by his speech, that he forgot and I forgot that I was to follow, and so I was not called. However, he has been more responsible to-night. So flattered was I at being able to get in that I gave five minutes to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on condition that he crossed the Floor of the House to get it. He did so, so fragile is his allegiance to the Tory Party. Perhaps if I had had 10 minutes to give away, he might have waited here.
I had better stop flirting. I have so much to say that it is impossible to say it in the time available. I want quickly to run over one or two things which I would have said in praise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, for whom I have always had deep affection and regard and to pay a compliment to his Department for going ahead with the Harrier, the Jaguar, the helicopter, the Nimrod and the Phantom. All these are worth recording to the credit of the Government, in spite of what it is hearing about itself today. I say these things particularly because I may have other slightly more critical things to say, and I shall know that I have cushioned my right hon. Friend by my opening remarks. We all recognise that stopping the AFVG project leaves a gap.
Last week, my right hon. Friend observed:
… we are authorising British firms to carry out a project study on a variable geometry combat aircraft to a modified specification.
We had a statement made by an hon. Gentleman to the effect that this was not a modified specification but was a replacement. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will tell us if the replacement is to be a modified version, or whether it is just to be a replacement, because they cannot be the same thing. If the version is modified, it is not a replacement of an aircraft with a different specification.
My right hon. Friend went on:
Exploratory talks with potential partners will be held as soon a possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1825.]
If money was the root of this particular evil which led us to abandon the Anglo-

French project, why could we not have sought a modified specification with the French before breaking the project off?

Mr. Healey: One of the reasons for the very substantial research and development cost of the AFVG was the attempt to accommodate into plans which would meet our requirements certain parameters which only the French wanted. The main qualification which we have introduced into the project study now being done at Warton is to take out those expensive additional characteristics required by the French.

Mr. Rankin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful explanation.
I should like to turn to the civil side of this question which is of great interest to me. My right hon. Friend and the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) both spoke of a European airbus. My right hon. Friend said that studies had been made of military requirements. What studies have been made about the requirements for a European airbus? The only guide that I have is in the studies of Shephen Wheatcroft. All Members interested in this subject will accept him as a gentleman whose word carries some weight. The airbus will carry something around 300 passengers. Mr. Wheatcroft says that potential demand in Europe in the '70s for that airbus will be six. That is the project with which we are going ahead. There is a potential demand of 23 for a 250-seater aircraft; a potential demand of 82 for a 200-seater; a potential demand of 170 for a 180-seater; and a potential demand of 143 for a 160-seater.
That is the demand in Europe. Yet we are pinning our' faith to an airbus in which six operators have shown an interest. Surely, we want to hear what greater justification than that the Government have for advancing this project, particularly since the British Aircraft Corporation is prepared to produce or at least has in mind and under study the BAC211, which fulfils the demand of practically every operator in Europe and, indeed, in most parts of the world.
The demands for aircraft with carrying capacities of 88 and 90 are well satisfied. The big gap is in aircraft with carrying capacities of about 180 or 190. This is the gap which operators all over the world—B.E.A., Sabena, the Italians, the


Portuguese and the Polish—want to fill, and this is the gap which we are ignoring. We are putting our faith in an aircraft for which there is a demand from only six operators.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich) rose—

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman need not get excited. I am keeping my eye on both clocks.
In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the support of what I am saying which has come from both sides of the House today, we do not want to buy abroad or build in conjunction with someone else an aircraft which we can produce in this country.
Having said only a part of what I might have said in other circumstances, and penalised to a certain extent by my own naturally generous nature, I make my bow and, like the star performer, retire from the stage.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for giving me just five minutes to say a few words. I wanted particularly to make one point. In another place tomorrow, we are celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Stanley Baldwin. As a nephew of Stanley Baldwin by marriage, I knew what great importance he attached to quality before quantity and how much he realised that if we were to survive as a small country against even the forces of Nazi Germany we had to concentrate upon and take care of our designers—Camm, who produced the Hurricane, Mitchell, who produced the Spitfire, and de Havilland, who produced the Mosquito.
It is with that thought in mind particularly that I join in the censure Motion and support my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), because I have a fear that, in the words of the Secretary of State himself, without the AFVG project there will be no design work for our industry.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member did not tell me that he was supporting his right hon. Friend when I gave him time to speak.

Mr. Ridsdale: One of the things that I cannot help but feel, therefore, in the cancellation which the Secretary of State has made of many of the projects which we of the Conservative Government brought in, is a lack of faith in our aircraft industry. Although the right hon. Gentleman may have looked at the matter from a financial point of view, my fear is that he does not realise that a Conservative Government are able to generate much more wealth than a Labour Government. A figure of 6·5 per cent. of the national product under a Conservative Government is much more than 6·5 per cent. under a Labour Government.

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose—

Mr. Ridsdale: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
It is because of that lack of faith by the Secretary of State that I support the censure Motion, because I know how much the Royal Air Force has suffered under the administration of the present Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who underlined the extent to which the Government have led the Royal Air Force very much up the garden path by, first, promising the TSR2, then withdrawing the TSR2, promising 100 F111s and then announcing that we were to have only 50. Now, are we to get any F111s is at all? What aircraft are we to get?
It is because of that lack of faith in the British aircraft industry and in Britain that I join in the censure Motion, because I realise so well what it means to the country that if we are to have a proper base to enable us to co-operate internationally with other Powers, we must have a bargaining counter. We must keep our design teams in being and, above all, as Stanley Baldwin wished more than anything else, we must concentrate on quality and not on quantity.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This has been an exceptionally wide-ranging debate. Many of the contributions to it have been interesting and valuable in their own right, although so far as they were directed precisely to the subject matter of the


Motion, none of them has given any comfort to the Government. Nor is it possible that they should have done so, since the facts which the Motion records are notorious and undeniable.
In his speech, the Secretary of State for Defence spent much of his time on a history of the Anglo-French variable geometry project. I intend, in turn, to go over much of the same ground, although I shall emphasise other features and I shall include elements in the story which, for reasons perhaps intelligible, the Secretary of State found it convenient to omit. I gather that he expected me to do this, and I think that he intimated that he was looking forward to it. In that case, I can only say that I hope that he enjoys it, and I wish him, "Good appetite."
For practical purposes, the story goes back just over two years to 17th May, 1965, when the right hon. Gentleman announced to the House the Memorandum of Agreement on the variable geometry aircraft which he had made with the French Government. He then said that,
we shall have to withdraw from service during the middle and late 1970s the Buccaneer, the Lightning and the Phantom 
and that the use which was foreseen for the variable geometry aircraft was to be a
replacement for some, or possibly all, of these aircraft, which will then be obsolescent.
At the same time, he mentioned that
there is no relationship between the F111A problem and the variable geometry aircraft now under consideration with the French."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 1008.]
What was that F111A problem and how had it arisen? It had arisen a little over a month earlier, when the Government announced that they had cancelled the TSR2 which had been designed as the successor to the Canberra aircraft, and that they had secured an option with the United States to purchase an unspecified number of F111 modified aircraft of which the first purchase would have to be made firm by the end of the year.
There is no doubt about the function of the Canberra aircraft. In the words of the Defence White Paper of 1966,
their primary role is nuclear strike, but they can also use conventional weapons to meet

national requirements outside the N.A.T.O. area … The squadrons declared to CENTO can undertake both nuclear and conventional operations in general and limited war … The Canberra has a radius of action up to 1,000 miles.
Such was the aircraft for which a replacement was required. That replacement was no longer envisaged as the TSR2, and the F111 problem, as the right hon. Gentleman called it, was the double question whether such a replacement was needed at all—whether the capability which at that time and still the Canberra uniquely gave would be necessary in the later 'seventies—and, secondly, whether, if so, it should be met by the purchase of the American F111 aircraft.
Those two questions were still under consideration by the Government when the year 1965 came to an end. There had as yet been no decision on the rôle—whether this particular capability would in future be requisite—nor, if so, upon the aircraft which was to supply it. Just before the end of the year, when an extension of three months of the American option was obtained, a debate in this House took place. Many possibilities were canvassed. There was discussion of a Spey/Mirage aircraft and of an extended version of the Buccaneer aircraft, but one possibility not mentioned in that debate was that this function might be fulfilled by the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. At the end of 1965, in the right hon. Gentleman's words, the Anglo-French variable geometry project still had "no relationship" with the F111A problem.
Then there took place, between the end of 1965 and 22nd February, 1966, the date of publication of the Defence Review in the White Paper of that year, a sudden and startling transformation; for in the Defence Review it was announced that a successor to the Canberra aircraft was required, and that that successor was going to be the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.
This was the celebrated declaration from which the words in the Motion before the House are taken. The White Paper said:
By the mid-1970s, we intend that the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft should begin to take over this"—


that is, the Canberra—
and other roles. Both operationally and industrially, this aircraft is the core of our long-term aircraft programme.
I think that at this point I should pause to refer to the most extraordinary and indeed alarming, intervention which was made by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier this afternoon in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), when he said, whether as a joke or not, that my hon. Friend should have known that the core of anything was "the central part meant to be cut out". After all allowance is made for the flamboyant temperament of the right hon. Gentleman, after all allowance is made for an incautious jest which he will long regret, what a revelation of the state of mind of a Minister that he should fling that retort about those words from his own Defence Review which are the subject of a censure on him today, which are the subject of one of the most serious blows which this country's aircraft industry, its long-term programme, has suffered; that he should choose to use those words and say that "the core is the part which is meant to be cut out". I wonder how our future potential co-operators in other countries will evaluate the attitude disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman. That was an interpretation, however, which we have only had today—

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is now displaying, as I predicted this afternoon, textual perversion of the highest order. Surely he is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) was making great play of the word "core"? He always arouses a good deal of frivolity in his audience, and I drew to his attention a meaning of the word of which I only became aware this week. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the word was used in that manner, either in the White Paper or in the debate?

Mr. Powell: I am content that the words of the Secretary of State for Defence should remain upon the record.
In the Defence White Paper of 1966 it was explained that since the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft was to be the main replacement after the mid-70s for the Canberra aircraft we should need

only to "bridge the gap". The arrangement which was to be made for bridging the gap was the F111A—of which, therefore, only 50 would be required—supplemented in the early 'seventies in the strike rôle by the V-bombers.
This was a completely new context in which the AFVG aircraft was suddenly placed. It was not surprising that the then Minister of Aviation, not having been let into the secret—as he was not let into so many secrets at that time by his colleagues—found himself in great difficulty in explaining what he had heard in the past and what he now learned about the functions of the AFVG. In his speech on the debate on 7th March last year, he contradicted himself hopelessly, representing the AFVG sometimes as a replacement and sometimes as a complement to the F111A.
At that time, already, the Opposition had warned the Government and the country that the Government had made the core of their long-term programme something which, as yet, had no real existence. As I said in the debate on 7th March last year:
the whole policy rests, and is admitted to rest, upon the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. … At present, this aircraft … does not exist, as someone in the aircraft industry put it to me, 'even on the back of an envelope'.
I concluded—and these are words that I can well use again tonight:
The whole thing is a structure of spoof, designed to cover up the mess into which the Government have got themselves by the cancellation of the TSR2 and the obligations that they have entered into to the United States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1966; Vol. 725, cc. 1766–7.]
Those words have been verified punctually and fully by what has happened in the last two years.
Not surprisingly, severe difficulties were soon encountered in the definition of the AFVG aircraft. Although it was alleged that by the middle of 1966 agreement upon specification—I understand that it was a very general specification—had been arrived at between this country and France, by the autumn of last year ominous news was begining to come from across the Channel. On 25th October M. Messmer indicated in the French Assembly that
Franco-British plans to build a supersonic variable geometry aircraft might have to be


shelved because of the cost. The studies we have carried out jointly show that this aircraft, though technically possible, would be very expensive.
He went on to say what the French might do
if we come to the conclusion that our financial means force us to put off its realisation.
That was in October, 1966.
Not unnaturally, anxiety was expressed in this House in the debate which followed in November. The existence of this anxiety—and here I pay tribute to the former Minister of Aviation, who always sought to be candid with the House within the limits of the very restricted information which he was allowed by his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence—was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, when he said, on 21st November:
the Anglo-French Variable Geometry aircraft illustrates the difficulties to which I referred"—
that is, the difficulties of international co-operation because M. Messmer had
'made it clear that certain budgetary problems made it impossible for him to agree then … for the project to proceed.'
He added:
This programme is of great importance to the French as well as to our own industry and failure to go ahead would be a grave disappointment and a blow to the hopes … of increasing Anglo-European collaboration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1966; Vol. 36, c. 969.]
All credit to him; he at any rate did not seek to disguise the risks, the uncertainties and the difficulties. It was at that time—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has already reminded the House—that the very important statement was made by the Minister of Aviation in answer to a question of his, that
We"—
that is, the Government—
are very well advanced with contingency planning about what we should do. We would hope to make an announcement"—
presumably an announcement of what they should do—
almost immediately if it failed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1966; Vol. 737, 427.]

An Hon. Member: We had it today.

Mr. Powell: An hon. Member says that we have had it today. What we have

today was a list which anyone might have compiled of the questions which had to be answered now and certain possible solutions in certain directions. Is this all that was meant by being "very well advanced with contingency planning about what we should do"? Is this the announcement about it which was to be made "almost immediately when it failed"?
That was the end of 1966. At the beginning of this year, the right hon. Gentleman went over and had a conference, one of many, with his opposite number, M. Messmer, and they arrived—so the right hon. Gentleman thought or believed—at an agreement. He was positively lyrical about it. In Paris, before he left, he said:
The agreement we have reached provides an assured future to the industries of both our countries …
The project was
… streets ahead of anything which is planned on the same lines in the United States
and it would be
the basis of a co-operation which would extend into the mid-70s and create the foundation for an advanced technology which can meet the American challenge.
Then he came home and, on the wireless, said:
The agreement is without qualification so far as this stage is concerned. There have been difficulties, but the difficulties which dogged the project a few weeks ago have disappeared, I think for good.
When he came to the House the following day, he was just as confident and asserted:
… this agreement lays the basis for the long-term future of the British and French aircraft industries in co-operation with one another. I hope that, whatever difficulties we might have had about this matter in the past, we can now agree that the industry has a stable programme of military aircraft carrying it through the 'seventies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 407.]
What he said was echoed by his colleagues. The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, responsible for aviation, asserted on 1st February:
… The main agreement has been reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 483.]
Again, on 28th February, he said:
… There is no doubt in our minds that this agreement is going through—we have had that assurance from the French—providing that all these preliminary tests are successful.


The reference to "tests" was very right and proper and necessary; but then, his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was so unkind as to ask him:
Could the Minister shed any light on what is meant in the French Press by the phrase 'breaking the financial barrier in November 1967'?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 236.]
That was indeed an important question, for the information which was coming from France was entirely different from the language being used in this country.
I accused the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps being over-generous to him, of
… having been carried away by his own enthusiasm and … unintentionally having given a wholly misleading impression of the status of this project and its firmness.
I pointed out that the French themselves, officially, had said:
… the Ministers fixed a time-table in which the principal hurdle, that is to say, the financial barrier, is situated at the end of 1967'."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 132.]
Such was the project of which the right hon. Gentleman was telling the House and the country that it was a firm agreement which they knew would go through. Yet this was a project on which he had agreed, or so the French believed, that they would take a financial decision, would surmount or not surmount the financial barrier, would take the budgetary decisions, right at the end of the year.
As I pointed out to the House, the French were entirely uncommitted.
In the course of December, 1967"—
again I quote the French Minister of Information—
one may decide whether or not—on puisse décider ou non—to start wtth the prototype in the following year".
I remember how amusing it was thought when I drew attention to this statement of the French. Incidentally, I must say, in view of one or two words which have been uttered in this debate, that the French have acted, so far as I can tell, so far as the published evidence goes, with good faith, candour and openness throughout the whole affair.
But very soon the evidence grew that there was trouble. Costs were rising. We began to read about it in the Press. In April we read:

At yesterday's meeting it became clear that Britain and France have still been unable to agree on joint specifications for the aircraft".
Again I repeated the warning that there was still no substance whatever in this aircraft. I told the right hon. Gentleman on 1st May:
… all the key decisions are evidently yet to be taken".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 100.]
This was two years after the original agreement and 15 months after this alleged aircraft has been made the core of our long-term aircraft programme. But the Ministers continued to bluff. For instance, the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred on the same day to
… the AFVG programme, which we are confident will be a great success".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 219.]
There was not much longer to run. At a further meeting in May the Ministers at last agreed on specifications, on cost and on the industrial arrangements between the two countries. But, as the Secretary of State said, this was ad referendum to the two Governments. It was merely an agreement between the Ministers. It was an agreement in vacuo as well as ad referendum; for the writing was already on the wall.
There followed in June that last, sordid, unworthy episode of prevarication in which needlessly, purposelessly, right to the last, the right hon. Gentleman tried to bluff it out. He told us today that he had learned from the French Embassy in London that the French Minister of Defence was writing to him about the financial difficulties which had arisen over the aircraft. Yet, in the House, when my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) challenged him and asked:
Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he has not received from M. Messmer a letter substantially saying what has been reported in the press
—which was exactly that—he replied:
I have received no communication from M. Messmer to the effect which the hon. Member suggests. …
A letter
might be on the way". [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1737.]

Mr. Healey: Exactly.

Mr. Powell: I do not know that disingenuousness could be carried much


further. It was certainly more than disingenuous when, the following week, I asked him if he "was aware of the purport of that letter when he answered Questions in the House" the previous week, and his answer was:
of course, no, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June 1967; Vol. 749, c. 88–9.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman calls "exactitude". I will leave that episode, also, confidently to the judgment of the House.
By that time the finale was only a few days off and on 5th July the end of the story came. The right hon. Gentleman then presented himself in a different guise. The confident assertor of the firm agreemmt—the certain basis of long-term collaboration—who had made this project the core of the long-term aircraft programme of this country, appeared as an injured innocent.
If I have failed"—
he told us—
that is riot my fault."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th, July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1826.]
It was not his fault, he told us—in spite of all that my hon. Friends had told him in the House, in spite of what hail been said outside, in spite of the fact that there literally had been no assurance whatever of this project from the beginning but he had rushed ahead and founded the major structure of our air defence forces in the 'seventies on that assumption. All that, he said, was not his fault.
What we charge the right hon. Gentleman with doing is having deliberately and knowingly made a project which he was aware had no assurance the core and basis of our long-term aircraft programme and, having done so, of having publicly and repeatedly asserted to the very last that he did have such assurance.
Such is the narrative of the events of the past two years—a story discreditable to the Government as a whole but discreditable, above all, to the Secretary of State, personally. The mere rehearsal of these events constitutes an indictment of the right hon. Gentleman and of his conduct in his office.
The Secretary of State has always shown considerable impatience at the care and persistence with which I have followed and compared his various, not

to say varying, statements as the months have gone by. I do not wonder. It is only natural that somebody who attaches so little importance to accuracy as the right hon. Gentleman does, should feel discomfort, not to say irritation, at being closely observed. On one recent occasion he went so far as to describe my careful attention to his words and activities as "nit-picking". Perhaps I might be forgiven if I say, in the light of what has happened: Some picking! Some nit!
I do not doubt that, at the end of this debate, a sufficient number of the party opposite will be found to approve in the Lobby what no one can seriously justify or defend. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be regarding the numerical count in the Lobby as the justification for his past course of conduct.
I dare say that for the next half hour or so the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology, who has the thankless task of covering up for the Secretary of State, will find something to say about earlier history or the Opposition or French politics, about anything and everything but what concerns the offence of the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman follows, and I hope that he will not, the pattern set by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we may expect in the last minute or two before the Division some irrelevant charge or innuendo.
But whatever he says, and whatever happens in the Division Lobbies, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence will leave this Chamber tonight a discredited man, discredited not so much because of the collapse and failure of his policy—though for failure, too, we have to bear responsibility in this House—but discredited because he is proved to have gambled wilfully, persistently, brazenly with the highest interests of this country—gambled, and lost.

9.31 p.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) began his speech rather plaintively, in that he referred to a debate which he thought had ranged rather more widely than the terms of the Motion he had tabled. The


reason for that is very easy to understand. It is that most hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and it has been a very interesting and important debate, have thought it right, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, to make some reference—some reference —to the problems created by the withdrawal of the French from the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft project. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I intended to say anything damaging in the last few minutes of my speech: I assure him that the most damaging thing that could be said about the party opposite has been what he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) have failed to say.
Nobody denies that this is a debate of the utmost importance to our national defence and to the British aircraft industry but, when everything has been said and done, what has actually happened? Two years ago, the British and French Governments decided to collaborate on a sophisticated combat aircraft designed to meet their joint needs in the 'seventies and 'eighties. What has happened is that the French Government, and we much regret it, have withdrawn from the project. To listen to the speeches made from the other side, one would really think that my right hon. Friend had made a statement on 5th July announcing that we had withdrawn from the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.
During a debate of this kind, one would have expected that some of the spokesmen for defence on the other side would have devoted themselves, as several hon. Members did, a little more constructively to the problems that have been thrown up by the French withdrawal. But instead of this, and this was entirely predictable from the beginning, the right hon. Members for Mitcham and Wolverhampton, South-West have chosen to make this debate a chance to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
I must say that, watching the development of this argument over the last few months, it has been very evident to me —and even more evident tonight—[Interruption.]—that members of the party opposite were hoping that this

project would be cancelled so that they could mount an attack—[Interruption.]—upon my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much aircraft noise. The Minister replying has a right to be heard in the same way as other hon. and right hon. Members have been heard in this debate.

Mr. Benn: It is very kind of you, Mr. Speaker, to protect me, but I am perfectly happy to put my points. If hon. Members do not want to listen, that is up to them. From the very beginning, for the last two years, the party opposite have seen the AFVG as a weapon principally directed against my right hon. Friend. Of all the people to wring their hands over a cancellation of an aircraft project members of the party opposite are the least qualified to do so.
I do not want to go back, and certainly would not otherwise have gone back over the history of recent years but for the very long list of aircraft cancellations by the party opposite. I do not want to refer to each project individually; I would rather attach the projects to the hon. and right hon. Members responsible for cancelling them. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) cancelled two projects at a cost of £27 million. Mr. Peter Thorneycroft cancelled four projects at a cost of £18·4 million. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), on my count, cut eight projects at a cost of £109 million. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cut 10 projects but only at a cost of £19·5 million. There could have been no combination of enemy forces in the world since the war who could have inflicted such damage on the industry as the party opposite.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to a year or so previously—I cannot remember whether he was in the House then—when the Swift fighter had to be cancelled at a cost of £35 million?

Mr. Benn: Of course, the Swift fighter is in the list.

Mr. Sandys: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


was priding himself on the number of projects which the Labour Government after the war initiated? The Swift was, of course, one of those.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind. If his criticism is of the cancellation of a project he must take full responsibility, as he did, for eight projects at a cost of £109 million which he cancelled.
The point I am making is on the reference to the core of the aircraft programme, which was a fairly obvious point for the right hon. Gentleman to pick up, but the aircraft cancellations by his colleagues would have met the cost of the world's air forces for a generation.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: As the right hon. Gentleman has the list, will he read out the projects which were the core of the Conservative defence policy and which were cancelled?

Mr. Benn: It was not the core that was cancelled, it was the whole apple.
The right hon. Gentleman then talked about the AFVG as a "structure of spoof"—a very good phrase. But Mr. Thorneycroft spoke very favourably about the idea of an Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and, as my right hon. Friend said, in his more euphoric moments took credit for this, in which case the architect of the structure of spoof again was to be found on the benches opposite.
The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that they try to persuade the electorate and the public to think that history began on 14th October, 1964, but it did not. Anyone who knows about the problem, which is a very difficult one, of mounting national or international projects knows that the risk of cancellation for one reason or another, for good or bad reasons, is part of the problem which Governments face when they try to meet the need with their own aircraft.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Member will allow me, I think I had better continue my argument. I listened very intensely to what the right hon. Gentleman said

in his criticism of our placing—I forget whether it was all our eggs in the international basket or one egg in an international basket—a very colourful phrase. His own solution was a British VG—one egg—for which he hoped that there would be international support.
If, instead of doing what we did, we had taken the right hon. Gentleman's advice and had made a British VG and then sought international collaboration, could that have been done as well as the AFVG? Of course it could not. The design capability was not there. Therefore, the problem the right hon. Gentleman has to face is that, in terms of cost and design capability, there is only the possibility of one.
He says, "If we could bring others in, we would not allow them to cancel". His great idea of international collaboration is the cancel-proof clause in the contract. Supposing these projects which I have read out-30 of them—had been done by international arrangement under the terms that the right hon. Gentleman himself laid down—that no one could cancel—every one of the 30 projects would have had to go on, whether his own colleagues wanted them, or the French, or the Germans, or the Americans, wanted them to go on or not. If the right hon. Gentleman reflects, he will admit that he produced a most extraordinary doctrine that into international collaboration there should be introduced a specific, statutory, contractual bar to cancellation, although he knows as well as anyone knows that a project may well have, for some reason or another, budgetary or technical, to be cancelled at some stage. What he really said was that international collaboration was not a part of his thinking.

Mr. Hastings: Surely the Minister appreciates that what we are after is to prevent unilateral cancellation.

Mr. Benn: One cannot write into an international contract a provision which is capable of being upheld—[Interruption.]—this can be done on one condition only—if one is prepared to accept unlimited escalation. Then it can be done. If the economics are thrown out, if we say, "Whatever the cost of the aircraft, the project will continue", then it can be said, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that it can be done. Supposing that we had taken the advice of the right


hon. Member for Mitcham, supposing we had had a British VG and had tried, as he very fairly said, to attract other countries to come in and do a part—a wing, an engine, or whatever it happened to be—and supposing they then wished to cancel, would his position have been any different from ours, faced with the problem that faces the House tonight? The right hon. Gentleman has not devoted himself very seriously to the problems that are associated with this particular difficulty.
I want to draw attention to four questions which the Tory Party ought to have tried to answer in the course of the debate. First, in its opinion was it right for us to have based our future aircraft programme on collaboration with the French? This is the question the Tories did not answer. The right hon. Gentleman, in fairness, said that it was a structure of spoof, but he did not say whether, given that as one possibility, we should have based everything on this or tried to run two projects in parallel.
If we had tried to run two projects in parallel, has there been any calculation by the Tories of what the cost would have been? Or indeed, even more important than that, of what the necessity would have been for running two projects of a similar kind side by side? The Leader of the Opposition, who made a speech not long ago about economic policy, laid great emphasis upon restriction and upon the necessity for there to be a close check upon public expenditure. I am sure that he meant it. He ought to make the speeches internally first to his own colleagues, because it is no good his making speeches about the sort of control over public expenditure which he would exercise, were he given the opportunity, when his colleagues are advocating—it has come out again and again in the course of the debate—that we should undertake projects for which there is no known operational need and which it would have been very expensive indeed for us to have done.
The next point with which the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt was whether we should have included a provision for cancellation in this project. Allowing that had we gone ahead with a British VG by ourselves, we should have

retained the right, as with all our projects, to cancel, would he not have extended this to an international project?
Finally—and this is a point which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and others raised—is it seriously argued in the context of contingency planning, that while we were seeking, as we were with real enthusiasm, to bring the French along with the AFVG, we should simultaneously have been conducting these other negotiations, in order to maintain in play the possibility of an Anglo-German, or Anglo-American, or Anglo-European aircraft in addition? If, simultaneously, in addition to what my right hon. Friend was doing in his talks with M. Messmer and the talks that were going on over a very long time to establish the AFVG, we had been negotiating with other possible partners, when the AFVG was withdrawn, the Conservative Party would then have said, "You were never serious about your co-operation with the French, because all the time you were secretly negotiating to see whether you could agree on a project with the Germans and the Americans".

Mr. R. Carr: If that is the case, why did the previous Minister of Aviation say to the House that such contingency planning was well advanced and that the Government would be able to make an announcement immediately if the AFGV failed?

Mr. Benn: I am coming to the question of contingency planning in a moment. Contingency planning is totally different from keeping a number of projects going at the same time so that if we were to run into difficulties we could say, "Happily, we have another arrangement at an exactly equal stage of development with some other partner." Any suggestion that that is the sensible course to have followed is ludicrous.
What worried me most about the Conservative Party tonight, and particularly the two Front Bench spokesmen, was that the case for international collaboration was never put by them to the House. It is not based, in my opinion at any rate, upon the need for international collaboration for technical reasons. The truth is that there are sufficient designers of sufficient quality in the British aircraft industry—and I said this at the S.B.A.C.


dinner—to produce almost any aircraft, however complex. The problem in selling an aircraft or in producing an aircraft today is to find a wide enough market for it.
A point which struck me as positively obsolescent about the arguments from the Conservative Party, and the argument of Julian Amery in today's Daily Telegraph, was that they were still talking about aircraft as if the problem was how to make a swing-wing, or whatever the aircraft happened to be, instead of the problem of how to create an aircraft which meets a need and thus spread the high cost of research and development over the whole market. The term "market" in a commercial sense means the airlines. "Market" in the military sense means the operational requirements of countries which might acquire the aircraft.
The important point about the AFVG, a s about the Jaguar and helicopters, to which, if I have time, I shall make reference—and it applies to the airbus and one or two other projects, too—is that the Government have tried to start with the operational requirements of the market and have built collaboration upon that. To say that all one has to do is to produce one's own aircraft—as Julian Amery said today, even if it means some sacrifice of current consumption, because we must have the industry—is to miss the whole nature of the problem which confronts us.
The debate which we should have devoted to the question of the next stage has very largely been by-passed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am coming to it. The trouble is that very little has been said about the next stage, and I had to deal with the quite monstrous things which had been said about my right hon. Friend and to draw attention to the fact that nothing constructive had come from the Conservative Party in the course of the debate.
The choice which has to be made is not a choice of our making. We did not want the situation to arise as it has arisen. In opening the debate today, my right hon. Friend said that the operational requirement will have to be, and will be, subjected to the most stringent re-examination in the light of the further evolution of our defence policy outside

Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about that, and my right hon. Friend dealt with it. It will have to be compared with the operational requirements for combat aircraft in the European theatre.
Britain will not be alone in reexamining its aircraft needs in the next decade. In so far as we can get together on a common aircraft programme policy for Western Europe, to that extent we shall identify a market and the specifications, and this will help us to reach the right decision. I certainly differentiate the approaches from the two sides of the House, on the basis that we are beginning with the requirement, the specification and the market and are not beginning with the old-fashioned idea that one has only to produce an aircraft, regardless of cost, and somehow one has met the nation's defence needs. My right hon. Friend dealt with the argument very powerfully, for when we came into office in October, 1964, despite the immense expenditure on aircraft, many of which were cancelled, the Royal Air Force was not equipped with the aircraft which it needed for the job which it had to do at that time.
I come to the question of contingency planning. A great deal has been made of this, and the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs gave about contingency planning has been mentioned. Contingency planning involves the study—

Sir A. V. Harvey: Sir A. V. Harvey rose—

Mr. Benn: I am dealing with the point which the hon. and gallant Member made. If he does not like the answer, he can try again.
What must be involved in contingency planning is to identify the alternatives to which one may have to turn in the event of that contingency arising. This work in identifying the alternatives had, of course, been well advanced. But more important even than that was to make arrangements to see that if anything went wrong with the AFVG, the British design staff were safeguarded. The essential element of the contingency planning was announced immediately—not even almost immediately, for it was announced in the statement which my right hon.


Friend made on 5th July. He made it quite clear that the British design capability for advanced combat aircraft at Warton, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) referred, would be safeguarded while the contingency alternatives were examined.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the state of the Royal Air Force in 1964. Could he say, apart from the Hercules transport, which additional aircraft the R.A.F. have today which they did not have then?

Mr. Benn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows better than anyone that it takes about 10 years to produce an aircraft and it is nonsense to suppose that we could have produced one in three years. My right hon. Friend ordered the P1127 which had not been ordered by the Conservative Party, and he ordered the Nimrod—the maritime reconnaissance Comet—which had not been ordered by them. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that Government purchases in the aircraft industry last year were at a very high figure. I do not know whether it was an all-time record but I should not be surprised to find that it was.
The point which I want to make is that in terms of contingency planning the decision to safeguard the Warton design team, the study of alternatives and the fact that the modified design studies now taking place had already been prepared, as my right hon. Friend said, on the basis of concentrating upon our own requirements, and the fact that we had already arranged that the alternative study now in progress could be based upon the existing Rolls Royce engine, either the RB153 or the RB172, constituted a very advanced piece of contingency planning which fully justified what my right hon. Friend said last November.
It is perfectly true that if we were to decide to go on with another project, then it is a matter of identifying what is the best possible project to have. A number of alternatives have been discussed and I do not want to go into them in any great detail. There is the possibility of a co-operative venture with the United States, to which my hon.

Friend the Member for West Lothian referred—the swing-wing Phantom. It has been discussed in the papers, but to the best of my knowledge has had no support from the American Government.
Another possibility, and these have all been widely discussed by informed opinion, is that of some alternative European collaborative effort.
Then there are those who have advocated that there should be an all-British variable geometry aircraft. This appears to be the solution which the party opopsite think right.
I want to emphasise that the full capability at Warton is being preserved while we evaluate in depth the alternatives and reach the decision that has to be reached. These do have very serious industrial implications. It is absolute nonsense, and no one knows this better than hon. Gentlemen who work in the aircraft industry, to say that the disappearance of the AFVG means the end of the aircraft industry. If there is one group that has done consistent damage to the aircraft industry in the last three years, it is those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have chosen to speak with such pessimism and gloom in order to secure some minor success in the House of Commons. They have really convinced many of our customers abroad that there is a Government in power who are trying to damage the aircraft industry. The prophets of gloom on the other side have far more upon their consciences than we have.
Many wider questions were raised, and I will not go into them all. I do not have the time to say more than a few concluding words. It is curious that in the course of the debate upon a particular project, which admittedly is an international project, from which one partner has withdrawn, hardly any reference should have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West or his colleagues to other international projects which are going on very well.
There has been hardly any reference to the Jaguar, which is going very well. It is likely to be on time and the contracts on Phase I development have been let. Contracts for Phase II are well advanced. Authority to sign was arrived at on 29th June when my right hon. Friend met the French Minister. The production stage is due for launching this year, and the


work and the costs are to be shared on a 50-50 basis. In addition there is the possibility of bringing the Germans in. There has been no reference to this. One would think that one cancellation constituted a complete end—[Interruption.]—to international collaboration.
Take the example of the helicopters. This is a package deal which stands on its own and which meets our needs and those of the French. Very great progress is being made.
If one looks at the European airbus, to which reference has been made, it will be seen that we are making as good progress as can be expected at this stage in the project. We have made clear that a European engine, the RB207 must be incorporated in it. The orders by this Government for the Harrier; the establishment of the Nimrod, the authorisation

for Skyvan and other projects which I have not time to deal with, are all worthy of comment.

The truth is that the aircraft industry has a secure future in so far as it can meet the growing needs of the world, military and civil, for aircraft. It is to add insult to injury for the party opposite, who did so much to damage this industry, to pay us the insult of supposing that our memories are as short as they would like us to believe.

Question put:—
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for having made a project, of which they had no firm assurance and which has now collapsed, the core both operationally and industrially of the long term aircraft programme of this country.

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 323.

Division No. 456.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Currie, C. B. H.
Higgins, Terence L.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B.


Astor, John
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Holland, Philip


Baker, W. H. K.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hordern, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornby, Richard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Doughty, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Batsford, Brian
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hunt, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Fortescue, Tim
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Baker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Body, Richard
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kershaw, Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Kimball, Marcus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)



Braine, Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Brewis, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Glyn, Sir Richard
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lambton, Viscount


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bryan, Paul
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grant, Anthony
Lloyd,Rt.Hn. Geoffrey(Sui'nC'dfield)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gresham Cooke, R.
Longden, Gilbert


Burden, F. A.
Grieve, Percy
Loveys, W. H.


Campbell, Gordon
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
Mac Arthur, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
MacLeod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Channon, H. P. G.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
McMaster, Stanley


Clark, Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Clegg, Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maginnis, John E.


Cordle, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marten, Neil


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maude, Angus


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crowder, F. P.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)




Miscampbell, Norman
Prior, J. M. L.
Teeling, Sir William


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Pym, Francis
Temple, John M.


Monro, Hector
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Montgomery, Fergus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Murton, Oscar
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Robson Brown, Sir William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Noble, Rt. Hn, Michael
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Nott, John
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Onslow, Cranley
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Webster, David


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sharpies, Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Peel, John
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Stodart, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Peyton, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wright, Esmond


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wylie, N. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Pounder, Ration
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Jasper More.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ginsburg, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Alldritt, Walter
Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Archer, Peter
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Armstrong, Ernest
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gregory, Arnold


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Baxter, William
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamling, William


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hannan, William


Bence, Cyril
Dell, Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dewar, Donald
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bessell, Peter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Haseldine, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Dickens, James
Hattersley, Roy


Binns, John
Dobson, Ray
Hazell, Bert


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, Desmond
Heffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Henig, Stanley


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Booth, Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Boston, Terence
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hooley, Frank


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Eadie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Hoy, James


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Huckfield, L.


Brooks, Edwin
Ennals, David
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ensor, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Finch, Harold
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Chapman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coe, Denis
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Coleman, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)







Judd, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tlc-u-Tyne)


Kelley, Richard
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Murray, Albert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Neal, Harold
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Newens, Stan
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Lawson, George
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Sheffington, Arthur


Leadbitter, Ted
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Slater, Joseph


Ledger, Ron
Norwood, Christopher
Small, William


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oakes, Gordon
Snow, Julian


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Lee, John (Reading)
O'Malley, Brian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Oram, Albert E.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Swain, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Swingler, Stephen


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Taverne, Dick


Loughlin, Charles
Padley, Walter
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Luard, Evan
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lubbock, Eric
Paget, R. T.
Thornton, Ernest


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pardoe, John
Tomney, Frank


McBride, Neil
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tuck, Raphael


McCann, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Urwin, T. W.


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


MacDermot, Niall
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Macdonald, A. H.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Weitzman, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Probert, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rees, Merlyn
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mapp, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marquand, David
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roberta, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maxwell, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mayhew, Christopher
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.p'c'as)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mellish, Robert
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mendelson, J. J.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Roebuck, Roy
Winnick, David


Millan, Bruce
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn, William
Woof, Robert


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Moonman, Eric
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Yates, Victor


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ryan, John



Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Charles R. (Openahaw)
Sheldon, Robert
Mr. W. Howie and


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill and the Criminal

Law Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 202.

Division No. 457.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bradley, Tom


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bessell, Peter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Brooks, Edwin


Archer, Peter
Binns, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Body, Richard
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Albert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Barnett, Joel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Buchan, Norman


Baxter, William
Boston, Terence
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)


Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James
Cant, R. B.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Carlisle, Mark




Carmichael, Neil
Hornby, Richard
O'Malley, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orbach, Maurice


Chapman, Donald
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orme, Stanley


Clark, Henry
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, L.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunt, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
Hynd, John
Pardoe, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crouch, David
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Judd, Frank
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Donnelly, Desmond
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dunnett, Jack
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.p'c'as)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roebuck, Roy


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ennals, David
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Royle, Anthony


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Ryan, John


Finch, Harold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foster, Sir John
McGuire, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John p.
Snow, Julian


Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Mapp, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David
Swingler, Stephen


Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maxwell, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Gregory, Arnold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Robert
Tinn, James


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Urwin, T. W.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Hamling, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hannan, William
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Haseldine, Norman
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitaker, Ben


Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Henig, Stanley
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Heseltine, Michael
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hilton, W. S.
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Nott, John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley







Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.



Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow
Mr. W. Howie and


Winnick, David
Yates, Victor
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Alldritt, Walter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Oakes, Gordon


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, w. H. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oswald, Thomas


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Peel, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Peyton, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Hence, Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pounder, Rafton


Higgs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rees-Davies, W, R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Robson Brown, Sir William


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Campbell, Cordon
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Scott, Nicholas


Channon, H. P. C.
Jopling, Michael
Sharpies, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whi


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Small, William


Corfield, F. V.
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lawson, George
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Currie, C. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Testing, Sir William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M,


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael
Vickers, Dams Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Webster, David


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne.N.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Whitslaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Sfford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)
Wright, Esmond


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Murton, Oscar
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Harold Currier.


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey

MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Before I hear any point of order, I have one to mention myself. I have not selected the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) or the Amendment thereto.

Mr. English: The Clerk just read out as the next business the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. The Motion which we have just agreed states that proceedings upon that Bill and the Criminal Law Bill may be taken at any hour, though opposed. I understood that today was a day of Government business and that, therefore, the next business should be the Criminal Law Bill.
Standing Order No. 15 states:
The orders of the day shall be disposed of in the order they stand upon the paper.
It also says that the right is reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers
… of arranging government business, whether orders of the day or notices of motions, in such order as they may think fit.
I shall be glad of your Ruling on the point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting his point so concisely and clearly. It is an ingenious point. The business which is before us now is, as he said, governed by the Motion which the House has approved, but the Government can arrange business in their own order. They have power over their part of the Order Paper and neither the Speaker nor the hon. Gentleman can change the Government's right to do that.

Mr. John Hall: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked to rule on it and I have ruled.

Mr. Hall: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Angus Maude: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have informed the House that I have ruled on this matter.

Mr. Maude: It is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Maude: As I understand the matter, Private Members' Bills are governed by a Standing Order which dictates the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, and what determines, as I understand Standing Order No. 15, what is Government business and what is not is whether it is starred on the Order Paper. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill is not so starred. Therefore, it must take its place among other Private Members' Bills, according to the Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am perfectly seized of the point which the hon. Gentleman is trying to make—

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that one of the Speakers' Panel of Chairmen will not interrupt the Speaker when he is dealing with a point of order.
From time to time—I make no comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the Government decision—the Government make room in their own time for private Members' business. If the hon. Gentleman will look, for instance, at the bottom of page 303 of Erskine May, he will find the passage:
Occasionally the Government find themselves bound to provide time for subjects the discussion of which is demanded by a substantial number of Members whether supporters or opponents of the Government.
The Government have, in their wisdom or otherwise, found time for this Bill, and, having done so, it is their right to place it, if they want to do so, on the Order Paper.

10.30 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): On a point of order. You have decided, Mr. Speaker, not to select some Amendments which are on the Notice Paper. I do not question that in any way, shape or form. But I noticed on Tuesday last, when Government business was being hotly contested by the Official Opposition and by—if I may so refer to them—the


regular band of opponents below the Gangway, that we managed, on that hotly contested Bill, on which the House was divided, to cope with Amendments at the rate of 35 minutes per Amendment and went through Third Reading very quickly. Perhaps 35 minutes is not a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but it was possible to do that with official Government business, which was hotly contested. May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been receiving advice all through the week on bow to conduct this evening's business. It will be no secret to the House that the advice varied. In fact, very often I received diametrically opposed pieces of advice. I am not prepared to receive advice from any hon. or right hon. Member as to when I should apply the Closure on debates.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. and gallant Member will listen while I address the House.
We have before the House serious business on which the House is divided, divided fundamentally. I would imagine that the opponents and supporters of the Bill would want to debate the issues, rather than spend time on points of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We come to Amendment No. 27.

Clause 1.—(MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY.)

Mr. John Tilney: I beg to move, Amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 20, at the end to add:
(c) that the woman or girl became pregnant as the result of an alleged offence under one of the sections 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 or 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956:
Provided that information shall have been lodged with the police within 48 hours of the commission of the alleged offence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly.

Mr. Tilney: This Amendment would reintroduce in more exact form Clause 1,(1,d) of the original Bill, which stated
that the pregnant woman is a defective or became pregnant while under the age of sixteen or became pregnant as a result of rape.

Clause 1(4) of the original Bill read:
A termination of pregnancy performed on the ground of rape shall require the certificate of a registered medical practitioner consulted by the patient freshly after the alleged assault that there was then medical evidence of sexual assault upon her.'
After only a short debate—reported in columns 474–6 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee's debates—was that subsection (4) removed from the original Bill—I believe rightly, because it was extremely difficult to delineate exactly what "freshly" meant. Also, as the House will recognise, registered medical practitioners cannot say whether rape has taken place; all that they can say is that sexual assault or interference has.
I would quote what was said on that day, 16th March, by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn):
Therefore, I would ask the sponsor of the Bill to consider now and at a later stage making provision that a doctor and another of his colleagues be asked to certify that rape had been committed and that there were good grounds for therapeutic abortion. I would ask him to consider on what qualified grounds he would wish to insert into the Bill words to make certain that this dilemma of the medical practitioner would be overcome and to guard against the frequently unsustained and uncollaborated allegations of rape that are made".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 16th March, 1967; c. 475.]
I hope that the Amendment may help to that end.
Many hon. Members are against abortion on demand, and while the word "well-being" has been removed from the Bill, it still leaves the likelihood of abortion virtually on demand. In this connection, following the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), it is clear that the Government have given limitless time to this debate and have, therefore, virtually underwritten the Bill. I hope that the country has noted that fact, although the Bill has changed its shape so often.
In the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, Section 1 deals with rape, Section 5 with intercourse with a girl under 13, Section 6 with intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16. Section 7 with intercourse with an idiot or imbecile, Section 10 with incest and Section 14 with indecent assault on a woman.
When any felony is committed, it is the duty of either the parents or the person against whom it has been committed


to report it. I understand that the parents or the girl concerned is likely to be frightened of so doing and may be reluctant to give evidence in court. This is an understandable attitude, but mistaken because it enables the criminal to commit another felony.
Hon. Members say that, should my Amendment be accepted, this may still happen. However, it will safeguard the genuine victim who may have failed to convince a doctor that her case is genuine. I agree with the attitude of the National Council of Women, as expressed at its Southsea conference in 1965. It passed a resolution asking the Government
… to implement that Section of the 1939 Home Office and Ministry of Health Interdepartmental Committee report on abortion, which recommended that the Statute of 1861 should be amended to make it 'unmistakably clear that a medical practitioner is acting legally when, in good faith, he procures the abortion of a pregnant woman in circumstances which satisfy him that continuance of the pregnancy is likely to endanger her life or seriously to impair her health', with the additional provision that he should act with the sanction of a second medical colleague.
In addition
… the Council urges that induced abortion be legalised

(a) where there is a grave risk of a seriously defective child being born; and
(b) where pregnancy results from a sexual offence such as rape or incest."
It may be said that subsection (1,a) of Clause 1 of the Bill now covers such offences as rape or incest, but it puts on the two medical practitioners the job of deciding on inadequate evidence. How easy it is for a girl to allege an offence after she finds that she is pregnant. She goes to a doctor and, possibly, puts on an hysterical act. She may falsely allege that she has been raped by a coloured man and fears a half-caste child. Again, the House may say that the question of her mental health may be involved, and that, therefore, under the Bill as it stands, an abortion may be allowed.
I prefer to narrow down the possibilities of abortion for that reason. A girl who finds herself pregnant may well have a double motive to procure an abortion. She may want the abortion herself or she may want to shield her boy friend—who may even have suggested that she should have an abortion. How can a doctor check up that she has been raped? He may have doubts, but how

much easier it would be if she had already gone to the police. If that was not good proof—and I am told that the proportion of acquittals for alleged rape is high—it would at least be evidence in favour of the doctor if called upon to vindicate his good faith, and it would safeguard the girl who has not convinced the doctor to whom she has gone.
What happens when she reports to the police? She is examined by the police surgeon, and this should be done as early as possible. It might be suggested that 24 hours would have been better than 48 hours, but, unfortunately, in these days people are subject to drink and to drugs, and I therefore think that 48 hours is a better period. I believe that, should the House accept the Amendment, it would make slightly less bad what is still a thoroughly bad Bill.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Before my hon. Friend sits down, could he say why he does not think that 72 hours would be still better? It may well be that a girl in this position might not find it easy to tell the police about it. There may be delay. It seems to me that 48 hours might be on the short side. Could he direct his mind to that point?

Mr. Tilney: Many people might feel that a period of between 48 hours and 72 hours would be the best, but I should have thought that 48 hours was a reasonable compromise.

Mr. David Steel: While the sponsors of the Bill may have disagreed with previous Amendments there was in those Amendments at least a clear-cut point of disagreement, but I must confess that this Amendment is exceedingly muddleheaded, and was, if I may say so, with all respect, introduced with a very muddleheaded speech—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Tilney: It was a short speech.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Member made a short speech, and I am very grateful to him for that, but he was muddle-headed in saying that the whole Bill was for abortion on demand. If that had been so, there would have been no need to introduce the Amendment, but it is not so. Reference was made on Second


Reading to the cases which the hon. Gentleman outlined—carnal knowledge of girls of 16, and of mental defectives, and pregnancy following rape, and the Committee very carefully reconsidered the representations made to it by various bodies.
10.45 p.m.
We listened, for example, to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who said on Second Reading:
… the question whether conception as a result of rape should automatically place upon the doctor the right to abort, or the difficult duty of refusing to abort. It is almost impossible to decide this question…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1137–8.]
This was one of the matters we discussed in detail with the medical profession. The British Medical Association said:
We recognise that there is a considerable body of public opinion in favour of termination of pregnancy being specifically permitted by law in cases where pregnancy has resulted from rape, incest, or unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman. However, we must point out that considerable difficulties would arise in administering such a law and in addition it would give rise to very complex problems in the field of medical ethics.
The hon. Member referred to the resolution of the National Council of Women and its request that the Government should implement the 1939 Interdepartmental Committee's Report on this subject. I do not know if the hon. Member has had a look at that Report and what it said on this specific question of rape. If he had done so, I do not think he would have introduced this. Amendment. The Report says, on page 88:
In view of the objections to which we have referred, as well as of the practical difficulties, we do not feel able to make a recommendation that specific legal authority should be given for the termination of pregnancy resulting unlawful carnal knowledge.
It goes on to say:
In each individual case, as in every case in which the question of therapeutic abortion is considered, the decision must rest with the medical profession.
That was the conclusion of the Committee which sat under Mr. Norman Birkett, before the war, and it is a conclusion maintained today by the medical profession.
I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, because I believe that the cases of genuine sexual assault

and unlawful carnal knowledge are adequately catered for by the discretion given to the medical profession to consider these two matters regarding the total environment of the patient and her mental health.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I am trying to follow the hon. Member's argument carefully. He described the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) as muddle-headed, but he will know of the provision for this matter in the Bill he originally introduced. It is a very difficult question and I am trying hard to follow his argument.

Mr. Steel: I was about to quite what I said on that occasion. I tried to make clear on Second Reading why we included the provision on rape. It was that although we felt that there had been legal difficulties—this was considered in another place—it should be in the Bill at this stage because it was a matter which ought to be discussed. It has been discussed very fully with the profession and discussed very fully in Committee. I therefore think that the House will agree that the Amendment should not be persisted with.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Could the hon. Member answer the question about the 72 hours as opposed to 48 hours?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk (Mr. David Steel) is probably right in. saying that this would be adequately covered under the earlier provisions as they have been amended, but I found it a little difficult to follow the rest of his argument in answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples). To say that he put it into the original Bill so that it should be discussed is a most peculiar explanation. Should anyone put anything, however futile, into a Bill so that it can be discussed?
The hon. Gentleman said that it was fully discussed in Committee, but that is not so, for the simple reason that the sponsors introduced an Amendment to Clause 1(a) which nullified the effects of (c) and (d) before we discussed those paragraphs. In Committee, I said that this would get us into serious difficulty


because we did not have a chance properly to discuss this question in Committee. By the time that we came to what would have been subsections (c) and (d) we found that they had been deleted, already destroyed by the new subsection 1(a) which the sponsors of the Bill had introduced.
We have never had a convincing legal argument about whether or not it is easy or difficult to ascertain whether a rape has or has not been committed, or a convincing legal argument as to whether this point is adequately covered by subsection 1(a) as it is now proposed. I think that the House is entitled to have the assistance of at least one of the Law Officers on matters of this kind. It may be recalled that we did not have such assistance during our discussions in the Standing Committee; we had Departmental Ministers, but they consistently contradicted each other and voted against each other, and it is now time that we had the legal position satisfactorily explained. It must be sorted out.
Frankly, I do not know what the answer is, and I very much doubt whether any other hon. Member could say with certainty that he or she does; and after listening to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles I am no further forward.

Mr. John Hall: As a layman who has followed the proceedings on the Bill I came into the Chamber to listen to this Amendment being discussed and predisposed to oppose it because, like many of my hon. Friends, I have been conscious of the arguments previously advanced; of the problems which arise when one gets a girl who claims that she has been raped in order that she may have an abortion.
I thought that this was something which had been deleted after having originally been in the Bill, but after listening to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)—who, if he will forgive me saying so, made a rather arrogant speech—I feel prompted to explore the matter further.
In moving the Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has tried to meet objections which have been raised about laying down a specific period during

which a definite complaint has to be made. This goes a long way towards meeting the objection which is frequently raised against allowing rape to be pleaded as a ground for abortion, so that a woman must lodge her complaint within a given period; and within a short time.
There is an argument about whether what we are discussing is the right period or not. Perhaps a longer period should be allowed because if a woman has been subjected to a rape in circumstances which we can all envisage there is bound to be shock—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the imagination of some of my hon. Friends does not go far enough. That shock may last for a long time before the woman can bring herself to take the necessary action and, consequently, I think that the time factor ought to be increased.
I have no medical knowledge which enables me to suggest a suitable time, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has just said in his intervention, we really should have some legal guidance on this matter. I do not think that any hon. Member knows the full legal problems involved here so that he or she may reach a sensible conclusion. We should have a Law Officer here tonight.
I am surprised that on a Bill which arouses such deep feelings and which is the subject of strong and emotional arguments, as well as rational and logical ones, we are denied the benefit of the advice of the Law Officers, especially as, whatever the Government may say, this is a Government-sponsored Measure. In theory, it is a Private Member's Bill, but I cannot remember any other occasion when such facilities have been accorded to a Private Member's Bill. The only one I can think of which bears any comparison is the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, but that was in Government time.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order. Is this in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I was about to tell the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I was led a little wide


of the Amendment by the extraordinary circumstances in which we are debating the Bill.
I hope that the Amendment will be received with the seriousness it deserves. It is a definite attempt to meet many of the legal objects which have been advanced against including rape as a justification for abortion.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The House will have some sympathy for the qualities of compassion and understanding motivating the sponsors of the Amendment. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bill, I think that we would all want to help a person in the circumstances to which the Amendment refers. However, this is not the way to provide that help.
The Amendment seeks to bring about tie abortion on demand which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) have spoken of previously and which they say they strongly oppose. It goes far beyond abortion for medical or physical reasons, for reasons of the health, safety or well-being of the child. The Amendment would provide that the circumstances of the conception of the future baby would decide whether the child should have the right to live.
On a previous occasion the hon. Lady said this:
We are now discussing social grounds, however, and whether it is right for an abort on to be committed simply and solely because the coming child is unwelcome to its Parents.
This is one such case, when the reason for the abortion is that the child is unwelcome to one of its parents—we do not know about the other. The hon. Lady also said:
We must recognise that if an abortion is carried out merely because the child is inconvenient …
That would be the reason for destroying a potential child, under the terms of the Amendment.
Later, I took the matter up in this way:
Would not the hon. Lady agree that the terrible things which she is talking about are exactly the things she is asking the House to support in Amendment No. 27, which is in her name?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1967; Vol. 749. cc. 926–929.]

I ask the hon. Lady to accept that some of us have taken some trouble to try to understand over the last 12 years what an abortion means. It does not have to be spelled out to us. I would to God I had never heard of some of the things. I apologise for appearing to direct the whole of my criticism at the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Wavertree has not taken part in this debate.
11.0 p.m.
Of all the hon. Members' comments tonight, I would have hoped that he would not have chosen, in giving an example of rape, that of a white girl by a coloured man. He could easily have used the example of a coloured girl by a white man, or, as in the vast majority of cases in this country, of a white girl by a white man. I am sorry that he used this to criticise the Government for giving time to this.
Some of us who have supported some parts of the Bill, but criticised other parts of it, believe that there is a real danger that the Bill will be decided not only on the merits or demerits, but also on the rights of majorities and minorities in Parliament.

Mr. Tilney: I think that the hon. Member has misquoted me. I did not quote an actual case. I only said that a girl might falsely allege.

Mr. Ogden: I take the point, but the hon. Member might have quoted the case of a white girl falsely alleging rape by a white man. I think that the instance he gave was unfortunate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If I have to spell it out, it is a disgrace to Parliament. I suggest that the words in the Amendment are completely impracticable. One does not have to be a lawyer to know the difficulty of proving an allegation of rape. One is not proved guilty by two doctors and an allegation.
There are far better and more just ways of helping the girl who finds herself in the tragic situation which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston would in all sincerity want to help. I hope that the House will oppose the Amendment.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am among the hon. Members who would genuinely like the advice of the Law


Officers. I much regret that it is not available. Because of the degree to which the Government have committed themselves to the Bill, to put it mildly, on a point of this kind we should have some legal advice from an authoritative quarter.
This goes to the heart of the trouble some of us on the middle ground had: whether we are making legal sense or not. I can only put a point that has been presented to me, and which has convinced me, and is why I am opposing my hon. Friend's proposal, that the offence of rape is extraordinarily difficult to argue because it is so often carried out as a result of intimidation and not by physical violence.
If that is true, and I mention it as hearsay, clearly the offence would be impossible to establish and it would not make sense in the Bill. But I do not know whether it is good or bad ground on which to oppose the Amendment and it is precisely a point on which I would have thought a lawyer's opinion almost indispensable.
The remarks made by the promoter of the Bill were a little hard. This is the third Bill in which this Amendment has appeared in one form or another. There was the earlier Bill in another place and the hon. Member's own first draft. I recall the hon. Member's remarks on Second Reading about this subsection, as it then was. At one time this was thought a most desirable entry. It may well be that the rewriting of 1(1,a) covers the point. Again, that is something on which I would like a Law Officer's assurances.
I accept that the sponsor of the Bill speaks from the best of his knowledge, and, no doubt, other hon. Members who are learned in the law will give their view. The Government cannot, however, have it both ways. If they have sufficiently committed themselves to the Bill, as we all know that they have, it is crucial that at this stage they should give better assurances than we have so far had to those of us who are genuinely in doubt and on middle ground on the Bill. I hope that we shall not pass the Amendment without being given that kind of guidance which hon. Members, on both sides, would wish to have.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Government do not even have a Scottish Law Officer who is a Member of the House and who could give guidance to those of us who wish to raise questions concerning Scotland?

Mr. Deedes: I am not answerable for matters concerning Scottish law. As to English law, I hope that the Home Secretary will take seriously the point that we should not part with the Amendment without being given a serious rendering of the matter from a Law Officer.

Mr. Wylie: I will not detain the House long on the Amendment, but there are criticisms that one is tempted to make on it and I will endeavour to make them shortly.
First, the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, does not apply to Scotland. As the Amendment stands, two entirely different circumstances in which abortion can be granted in England and Scotland would arise. That is a matter of drafting and I dare say that it could be put right.
A deeper criticism arises because the Act, particularly in Sections 5 and 6, sets up statutory grounds of rape in which questions of consent or the absence of consent are irrelevant. Section 5 of the Act makes it a statutory offence
for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen.
It does not matter whether she consents or not. It is statutory rape if she is under the age of 13.
Section 6 introduces a more complicated situation, because it deals—and these provisions apply through different legislation to Scotland—with a girl between the ages of 13 and 16. It is again statutory rape, but a complication is introduced by the proviso in subsection (3), in these terms:
A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen, if he is under the age of twenty-four and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of sixteen or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.
Thus the offence under Section 6 is one which, in certain circumstances, turns on the rather complicated provisions of that subsection.
We have, therefore, the situation that a girl between the ages of 13 and 16 can


complain that unlawful sexual intercourse has taken place and it would be open to the accused, at a later stage in the criminal proceedings, to prove that he was under the age of 24, that he had never had a charge of that nature against him in the past, that he believed her to be of the age of 16 or over and that he had reasonable ground for that belief.
The test of the matter, the artificiality o the situation, is that an abortion would be granted on the ex parte statement of the girl. Whether that was justified would turn on the highly artificial circumstances as to whether or not the man had been previously charged with a like offence. The relevance of that provision in the context of the criminal law is considerable. It highlights the difficulty of applying criminal Statutes concerned with if e accused when assenting to legislation which is primarily concerned with the victim of the assault, the woman herself. I do not see how this would work, and I am disposed to oppose my hon. Friend's Amendment.
In my experience, common law rape is very difficult to prove. In practice, one has to have a very strong case before a jury will convict. For these reasons, my advice to the House would be to reject this Amendment.

Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 6th July I gave notice of a Written Question for answer today which was very important in connection with today's business, asking the Minister of Health whether he will published in the OFFICIAL REPORT the waiting periods in each hospital region for urgent and non-urgent gynaecological operations. To make sure that there was ample time for an answer. I gave a full week's notice. But no answer has been given today in accordance with the usual custom of the House. May I ask what protection there is for an hon. Member in this context?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that that is not a point of order which can be dealt with now.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): We all agree about the horror of bearing a child as a result of a sexual assault. Many hon. Members who oppose most of the provisions

in the Bill agree that an abortion would be justified in those circumstances.
As has been pointed out already, the original Bill before the House contained a provision in Clause 1(1,d) which included rape and dealt with a girl under the age of 16 and a woman who was defective. However, doubts were expressed during Second Reading about the wisdom of tackling the problem by a specific reference to rape. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) expressed those doubts and gave it as his opinion that rape and the other matters referred to in subsection (1,d) would be covered by subsection (1,a) as it was then drafted.
That was the opinion of the Government, too. Although there have been various Private Members' Bills which included rape as a specific reason for aborton, we have never thought that it was the right way to tackle the problem. During the Committee stage, subsection (1,a) of the Bill was widened, and the references to rape and a girl of 16 were taken out.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said that there was only a short debate in Committee, but the column reference which he gave was to a consequential Amendment and not to this Amendment, which was moved in a rather lengthy speech by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine).
The omission of subsection (1,d) of the original Bill was supported by all members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who said:
For the reasons I have outlined I felt it important to speak in support of my hon. Friend for the deletion of this paragraph. It is important that people should understand that from the point of view of the sponsor of the Bill the sole reason why the paragraph is to be deleted is that it is already enshrined in the Bill as amended."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st March, 1967; c. 322].
11.15 p.m.
There were several reasons why this was taken out in Committee. First, it was considered that these matters would be covered by subsection 1(a). Secondly, it was felt that if a specific reference to rape was kept in the Bill a doctor would be required to determine whether or not a criminal offence had been committed,


and it would be very difficult for him to determine that. Thirdly, there was a very real danger of false allegations being made. Fourthly, it was felt that if the girl was under 16 the doctor would take this factor into consideration when deciding whether or not to perform an operation.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: There is an ethical point involved here. Although, naturally, we all agree that rape is an unjust and highly immoral action, the child conceived as a result of that unjust and immoral action is completely innocent. This point should be taken into account, and the removal of that child should be considered only when it is essential to the health of the mother.

Miss Bacon: I know that the hon. Gentleman and others take that view, but I did not include that because, speaking personally, it is not a reason that I would have accepted, but this was put forward in Committee.
The Amendment is rather different from the original subsection 1(d). It would allow an abortion when the pregnancy resulted from an alleged offence of rape, or intercourse with a girl under 13, a girl under 16, or with a woman who is defective, defined as a severely abnormal person, of incest, or of indecent assault, provided that the information was lodged with the police within 48 hours of the alleged offence.
I understand that the phrase "alleged offence" has been included in the Amendment to meet the objection which had been adduced before, that the doctor himself could not determine whether rape had taken place, but by including this phrase the authors of the Amendment are creating a greater difficulty than would have arisen under the original Bill, because what they are saying is that if anyone goes to a doctor and alleges that an offence of rape has been committed, the doctor will be able to go ahead and perform the operation.
The doctor will have to find out whether the alleged offence has been reported to the police, and again it is an "alleged offence" and not "the offence", because, as was pointed out before, one cannot determine whether rape has taken

place until the matter has been before a court of law for the court to determine. For the purpose of the Amendment it is an "alleged offence".
According to the Amendment, the woman concerned must report the offence within 48 hours. We are dealing here not only with rape, but with unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, and many of these girls will not allege an offence of this kind within 48 hours. They will probably be frightened and not say anything until long after the 48 hours have elapsed. Therefore, while intending to be permissive, the Amendment is being too narrow, because it rather implies that if the girl does not allege within 48 hours that an offence has been committed the doctor might be committing an offence if he performs the operation.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the right hon. Lady agree with me that it should be a longer period—72 hours, or even longer?

Miss Bacon: No, I do not agree with that at all, because I do not think that this is the way to tackle this problem.
In trying to overcome some of the difficulties in the Bill the Amendment simply creates other and greater ones. I know that the House needs an assurance on the question whether or not a doctor would be prosecuted for performing an abortion on the grounds specified in the Amendment. These matters can be tested only in a court of law. Those hon. Members who have asked for the presence of a Law Officer know that in the last resort it is a court of law which determines these matters. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to get on with what I am saying.
The Clause, as amended, provides that it shall not be an offence if the doctor is of the opinion
that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family and in determining whether or not there is such a risk of injury to life account may be taken of the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable.
I cannot think of anything that would affect the mental health of a woman or a girl more than having to bear a child as a result of rape or sexual assault.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Oh.

Miss Bacon: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) says "Oh." I cannot think of anything that would affect the mental health of a woman more than having to bear a child who is conceived in these circumstances.
Even under present case law we know that doctors perform operations where the child has been conceived as a result of rape. There was the famous case of Dr. Bourne, who was acquitted for doing precisely this. Subsection (1,a) is much wider than the present case law. The words,
in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health account may be taken of the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable
would include a girl under the age of 16 who had conceived a child. Doctors already perform these operations.
We are discussing something which is not an offence under the Bill. Any doctor who would not perform an operation of this kind will not be induced to do so by e Amendment. It is extremely unlikely that any prosecution would be brought and even more unlikely that any doctor would be found guilty of an offence. Even if the House wants to see something included specifically about rape—and I advise it not to—the Amendment is not the way to do it. I hope that the mover of the Amendment will ask leave to withdraw it, because it would put us in a difficult position if we were driven to vote on this issue when practically everybody in the House would not want a woman to bear a child as a result of rape.
It is not so much a question of what we want in the end; it is a question of the way to go about providing for it. My advice is that subsection (1,a) covers the circumstances for which the Amendment seeks to provide.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for her assistance. Although generally neutral, the Government bear a responsibility: both Front Benches must consider the practicability and rationality of a change in the law and of advising on what is appropriate. The presence of one of the Law Officers would have been an advantage, by the right hon. Lady, not for the first time, has been a very effective substitute and I endorse what she said.
The essential change made by the Bill is the substitution for an unascertainable decision by a jury of what is legal or illegal of a qualified guarantee to two medical practitioners acting on certain criteria that if they act in good faith and perform the other objective acts prescribed they will not commit a criminal offence. I regard this as an advantage, but two prices have to be paid for it.
The first is precautions against rackets and the second the necessity to ensure that genuine medical criteria are involved, on which the doctors' qualifications enable them to give authoritative opinions. The proposal in the Amendment violates the second condition and substitutes for a medical criterion on which the doctor can speak one of which he cannot. If this were the only objection, it would be fatal.
The Amendment lumps together a number of offences. First is the question of rape, which depends upon consent. It is utterly inappropriate for a doctor to determine whether a girl has consented or not. If one adopts, as the Amendment does, some objective criterion like whether the girl complained to the police in 48 hours, one is putting a premium on false allegations against perhaps an innocent man.
The test of whether unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl of 13 to 16 may be partly the young man's age, which may be wholly irrelevant to deciding whether to terminate the pregnancy. If he is over 24, it is an absolute offence, but if he is under, it is not and one has to determine whether he knew the girl's age. What could be more absurd than to make the termination of a pregnancy depend on whether he was over 24, or if he was under, on whether he knew the girl's age. This is reducing law to nonsense.
I agree that there are a few cases of mental deficiency and of girls under 13 who conceive, but this can be dealt with under the existing law, the Bourne judgment, and by two medical practitioners under the proposed law. The right hon. Lady was quite right: although one's sympathies are with a case like this, one's head is solidly against it.

11.30 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: There is grave danger at this


point of being mesmerised by the red herrings which have been drawn across our path. It is extraordinary that, in the protracted debates on the Bill, few opinions have been proffered by people who have had children and have, therefore, rather more knowledge about childbirth than the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.
Men cannot and will never know what it is like to bear a child. I do not blame them for that. Indeed, I congratulate them. It is not their fault that nature has robbed them of the ability to have expert knowledge of this procedure. Book learning will not help nor, indeed, does it help merely to have a wife who has had a child. Men speak in abysmal ignorance of the procedural side of bearing a child.

Miss Bacon: If the hon. Lady is arguing that people can speak only from experience, and she is talking about rape, is she saying that only hon. Members who have been raped can talk about rape?

Mrs. Knight: The right hon. Lady errs perhaps on the side of optimism. If she will kindly wait, I will tell her what I wish to say. If she wishes to question my judgment or experience she is at liberty to do so, but for my part I am perfectly at liberty to speak from my experience, which, if she will permit me, I intend to do.
Of the procedural side of childbirth—those were the words I used—I claim knowledge which most hon. Members cannot claim. I have had four children, although only two are living. I would not criticise the method by which a child develops and is born. It is a marvellous process. But it is not comfortable. Physically, there is often extreme discomfort and sickness, pain and various other difficulties. Mentally, there are times when one is in the blackest despair. But in normal circumstances, a woman bears all these things, often very gladly. Most children conceived are wanted and are awaited with pleasure and gladness.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State to sit there sneering when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston

(Mrs. Knight) is taking up seriously the point made by the right hon. Lady? This is abominable behaviour on the right hon. Lady's part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That kind of intervention does not help.

Mrs. Knight: I was saying that, in normal circumstances, a woman will bear all these deprivations, if not gladly at least with a certain amount of stoicism. However, I can imagine—and sometimes perhaps I have too vivid an imagination—no torture more ghastly than to have to bear all these deprivations after an act of rape. This is what the hon. Member, the name of whose constituency escapes me, does not understand. This is the whole crux of the argument. There could be nothing more horrible than, after an act associated in the mind with utter degradation, to have to experience these troubles and this pain, protracted over many months, before the final agony of giving birth. This to me is the absolute horror.
The right hon. Lady will see that when I outlined the method of operation required for this horrible abortion, I said that one must have a very good reason for it. I said that it was not enough that the child was not wanted. An act of rape completely changes the character of this ordeal. If the right hon. Lady reads my speeches she will see that I have said consistently that rape must be regarded as a horrible experience and that it was quite unfair to ask a woman to carry through a pregnancy resulting from rape. Some hon. Members even quote Confucius in saying that a woman is always able to avoid rape if she wishes, but that is not true. Perhaps it is a comfortable male philosophy to salve their consciences. There is, in fact, rape by brute force and rape by threat.
Recently, a case occurred in the town in which I live. A meeting was taking place in a local school—I think a parent-teacher meeting. Frequently, only one of the parents attends such a meeting because the other must remain at home to look after the family. A young married woman who attended the meeting was asked, in a civil manner, whether there was a way into the back of the school over a playground, and she went round the corner of the school with the man to point out that there was


such a way. The man picked up a brick and hit her on the head with it. She tried to run away, but he hit her again and threatened to kill her if she did not submit.[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether I might have your protection against the noise being made by hon. Members. These are serious matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House wishes to listen to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Knight: This young woman was terrified, battered and bleeding, and she submitted. That sort of case is by no means rare, and I urge the House to accept that rape is not so rare that there is no need to protect women from it.
The right hon. Lady pointed out that caves of rape are covered by Clause 1(1,a)—and she quoted what I said in Committee, but, again, did not quote all that I said. I then made it clear that I regarded these circumstances as meriting special consideration. I want to see rape spelled out clearly as a particular reason for abortion. If women knew that, without any argument, they could get an abortion after rape if they reported it immediately, they would be much more ready to report it.
Of course, rape is difficult to prove. But it is not as difficult as all that if a doctor knows within a short time of the event that the woman claims to have been raped. In the case I have just described the woman's head wounds would have been sufficient. Evidences of struggle are easy to see, and that is why I cannot agree with hon. Members who have said that this is not within a doctor's range of ability to deduce.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not agree with the hon. Lady's argument. How would she distinguish between rape by force and rape under the influence of drugs or by fraud? That is a serious defect in her argument.

Mrs. Knight: It is not easy to answer specifically the hon. Gentleman's question. Nobody pretends, least of all my hon. Friend and I, that the Amendment is perfect. It would merely do something which we consider necessary. It may well be that there are other kinds of rape

which it would not cover, but at least it is an attempt genuinely and sincerely to do what can be done in circumstances where we feel help is needed.
The difference between the Amendment and what we discussed in Committee is the very point about time. If a woman reported at once and if it were clearly spelled out that rape was a reason for abortion, there would be a great difference. If genuine rape had occurred she would go to a doctor and would have the visible signs for him to see plainly. But they fade quickly.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) is concerning himself very much about the period of time we should have put in the Amendment. I would not quarrel about the particular time. I am urging that the time part of it makes it completely different from anything we discussed before. It is a genuine attempt to smooth the path of the doctors who are asked to judge whether or not a rape has been committed.
It is true that a woman normally would not tell anyone that she had been raped. It is easy to imagine that a frightened girl would not want it known She would be ashamed and horrified. She will probably hope most fervently that she will not become pregnant, and says nothing until she knows whether or not she is. That is what she will continue to do if the Amendment is not incorporated in the Bill.
She will probably not know that rape is a reason for abortion as rape, and not as it is enshrined in another part of the Bill. She will regard this differently. My hon. Friend and I regard the Amendment as important because by the time the girl knows that she is pregnant it will be too late to discover the signs about which I have spoken, and it will not then be possible to say whether or not it is a genuine case of rape. With the Bill as it stands, unless a woman suffered grave mental repercussions from a rape she could not say to a doctor six weeks or two months later, "I was raped. Please arrange for me to be aborted under Section 1(1,a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act."
If the Amendment were incorporated, she would feel differently about the matter. If it was known that the rape


must be reported within 48 hours, it would save some women many months of anguish. Perhaps not many women are raped and not many pregnancies result from rape. But I am not arguing about numbers. All I have said all along is that rape happens and babies are born as a result. Just because only a small number of babies and girls or women are affected, it is not sufficient reason to ignore the fact.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Lady refer to the Bourne case. It is important to say a little more about it. Dr. Alec Bourne, who, I believe, at the time was at St. Mary's Hospital, London, performed an abortion on a young girl who had been raped by a group of soldiers. He carried out the operation himself, and he elected to go for trial; because he wanted the blame for the operation to fall on his shoulders only. He went to court and was acquitted, and the judgment and the interpretation of the law was that
no clear distinction rests between preserving life and preserving health.
Therefore, Dr. Bourne's action was lawful, because it was done to prevent a girl from becoming a nervous wreck. He knew quite well that a rape had taken place, the indications were plain for him to see, and he carried out the abortion operation before the men went to trial. What is very important to understand is that Dr. Bourne, on whose case the whole of the law on abortion has rested since, is strongly opposed to the present Bill. At the same time, he is now, I am sure, as he was then, most sympathetic and understanding in a case of rape. I am quite sure that he would still say that, as an humanitarian act, abortion should be carried out following rape.
11.45 p.m.
Just one or two words about the other Sections mentioned in the Amendment. The only other person to refer to them at all was my hon. Friend. They are important. Section 5 deals with unlawful intercourse at under 13; Section 6 with unlawful intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16. It may be said, and I am sure it will be before the debate is finished, that there are a great many girls about these days who, even at a tender age, invite intercourse, and that although they are only 13, 14, 15, or 16 that does

not mean that rape has taken place. I would agree with this view. I am sad to agree, but agree I must.
The 48-hour provision in the Amendment deals with that type of promiscuous juvenile, because, surely, a girl who habitually indulges in sexual intercourse at a very early age would not go along 48 hours after whenever it happens and report rape. This is the whole difference—and again I stress it—between anything we have discussed before and what we are discussing now. The 48-hour part of the Amendment covers such ordinary promiscuous children.
Not very much has been said about Section 7, and I think perhaps a little more should be, because intercourse with a woman whom a man knows to be an idiot or an imbecile is a very, very serious thing, and I am very concerned about the number of children who are born of such intercourse. It often happens, I am sorry to say, in country districts, to women who are known to be imbeciles. Because of her mental state, the woman herself may not understand what is happening to her.
I would not argue about that, but it is a repugnant thing to see, as I have done—in a village, again, not far from where I live—such a woman with a string of children round her skirts. It horrifies me. They are very sad targets, women of this kind. I know that it may be that few hon. Members will agree with me, but personally I think such women should be sterilised, not aborted; but I do not think that they should bear children.

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Lady aware that a woman in that condition is hardly likely to report the matter within 48 hours and that, if she did not report it within that time, she would be excluded from the provision—because of the hon. Lady's opposition to the rest of the Bill?

Mrs. Knight: I have made it clear that we do not pretend that the Amendment is perfect. But the hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise the difficulties and the human unhappiness which is caused—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) would take this matter seriously. It is no laughing matter.
The Amendment proceeds on two beliefs; first, that it is unspeakably cruel to


force a woman to go through a pregnancy after a genuine rape; and, secondly, that 48 hours is sufficient a time to enable doctors to judge the case and avoid abuse. A red herring which has been thrown into the discussion is that we cannot proceed along these lines because the man involved in the case would have to be arrested. I am not concerned with putting the man in the dock, but with relieving the suffering of an unhappy girl. The point to consider is how we can protect the girl.
The Minister referred to my earlier remarks. I assure her that I have been consistent in what I have said. When I opposed the Clause in Committee I did so because I felt that, in its original state, it did not meet the case. When a Committee stage is over one does not leave the matter there. One goes on to consider what can be done. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East appears to find this funny, too. What she can find to laugh at when we are discussing such a serious matter, I do not know.

Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order. On looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) averaged three interruptions per page. Progress would be speeded if my hon. Friend exercised some restraint.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Knight: The Minister also described the Amendment as "different". of course it is, and I support it because, having given the matter great thought, the period of 48 hours would appear to meet the case.

Mr. David Weitzman: Is the hon. Lady aware that acceptance of the Amendment would mean that a girl need only allege, within 48 hours, that she had been raped and she would be entitled to a abortion?

Mrs. Knight: No. The Amendment must be read as part of the Bill as a whole. An earlier part of the Bill states that doctors must reach a conclusion about the case. Surely it is quite clear

that we are suggesting that two doctors reaching the conclusion that the girl was raped should be a reason for an abortion. If the girl has gone to the doctor merely as a try-on, as I think the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is suggesting, the doctor would at least be able to ask "Why do you say you were raped? Where are your scratches? Where are your bruises?" It is not good enough for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that this is merely a get-out for a girl who wants to get an abortion easily. The Amendment was not tabled in that belief, but in all sincerity, and for the sake of such unfortunate girls and women I very much hope that it will be accepted.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has said that she would not be wedded to the figure of 48 hours, would you be willing to accept a manuscript Amendment to omit from the Amendment the figure 48 and to insert the figure 72? That would certainly help me in my view of the Amendment, and might help others in their views. Would you accept a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that I cannot accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Ian Percival: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not observe anyone move the Closure, and others of my hon. Friends and myself have been seeking to speak in this debate for some time. Do I understand that you are about to close the debate by putting the Question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I understood that the House wanted to come to a conclusion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dunn.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I wish to speak against the Amendment. In moving it, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) had the courtesy to mention


what I said in Committee. Tonight, I listened to him very carefully, but I am sorry to say that so far from removing my doubts he has only made them more acute. For the first time during our deliberations I find myself in complete disagreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), which is surprising, because throughout the Committee stage we found ourselves in accord.
It was suggested that the hon. Lady could not speak from experience about rape. I acknowledge that she did not do so, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, would be in the same difficulty on exactly the same grounds in talking about abortion—as we all would. I therefore do not think that that is the criterion by which we should make our contribtutions.
I quite firmly believe that the Amendment would create more anomalies than it tries to solve, although I fully acknowledge the sincerity and humanity that lie behind it. Indeed, I acknowledge the sincerity and humanity of the sponsors of the original Clause. Everyone will readily agree that wherever it is possible to alleviate the suffering that is imposed on any woman, whether young or old, married or unmarried, such relief of suffering would be welcome, provided that we could qualify it.
To those who support the Amendment, I say that we cannot qualify it. To go right over Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 14 of the Sexual Offences Act is like going across the octave, but the tune at the end is very blurred. The Amendment would provide the opportunity for exploitation undreamed of during our discussion of the Bill.
12 m.
Once we allow a medical practitioner to make a contribution to a judicial decision, whether he has other medical practitioners in consultation with him or not, we are doing something wrong. I am not a legal expert, but, applying a little common sense, I can imagine a set of circumstances in which a girl may make a statement to a medical practitioner within 48 hours that she had been raped. The doctor, in consultation with his colleague, might accept that she had been raped—under what criteria I do

not know. Then at some stage it could be said that Mr. B had raped Miss X. Very soon that news would percolate through the community and Mr. B would stand condemned. Would he not have the right to go to the court to seek justification of the claim? Would he not have the right to sue for libel and to include in the suit he brought the contributory evidence of the medical practitioners? Are we not, in those circumstances, asking the profession for something it cannot sustain?

Mr. John Hall: Did not the Minister of State, Home Office, point out that the problems arising from the offence of rape are already adequately covered under Clause 1(1,a)? In those circumstances, the doctors would be able to decide whether rape had been committed.

Mr. Dunn: That may be so and the right hon. Lady will agree that the decision about rape is not something which is absolute. Absolutism is in the criteria of the woman's mental and physical health. If a sexual offence had been committed, either singly or by a number in concert, the mental stress on that woman would be registered. This could be found by medical examination.

Mr. James Dance: Would the hon. Member not agree that there are various kinds of rape? There is the one of a woman who is under threat, frightened, terrified, and not necessarily attacked, and she is raped by a man. She may go home and say, "I hope that it will be all right" and not report the rape within 48 hours. The 48 hours provision is very dangerous.

Mr. Dunn: The provisions in the Amendment raise great doubts right across the board. I hope that the House accepts that it would be very dangerous to incorporate it in the Bill. My right hon. Friend spoke of the legal and medical aspects and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) gave of his wide experience in other fields. Between them, they have covered the medical and legal aspects. I have mentioned the question of libel and I go a step further. In all the discussions in Committee the sponsor was pressed to move paragraph (d) and he did so. Many of those who this evening have thought him discourteous should realise


that he may have thought that those who had wanted the paragraph removed now want to return to it, but that is not so. As the matter is covered by paragraph (a), I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price(seated and covered): On a point of order. I understand that, according to the traditions of the House, hon. Members who are on the premises, and who, for medical and other reasons, are incapable of being here have always been traditionally allowed to be nodded through the Division Lobbies. I understand that on this occasion this fact is

being disputed, and I would like your Ruling on it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful. It is quite a surprise to me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take his hat off while I answer him.

Mr. English: (seated and covered): On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I will not be addressed on a point of order while I am dealing with a point of order.
My understanding is, from my experience of Parliament, that this nodding through of hon. Gentlemen who have medical reasons for not being able to walk through the Division Lobby is an arrangement between the Whips and Tellers of both sides. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think that it obtains tonight.

Hon. Members: Shame.

The House divided: Ayes 175; Noes 76.

Division No. 458.]
AYES
[12.07 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Eadie, Alex
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)


Astor, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W. Ham, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ellis, John
Judd, Frank


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ennals, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ensor, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Barnett, Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Kirk, Peter


Bern, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fernyhough, E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Bessell, Peter
Fisher, Nigel
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Binns, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Luard, Evan


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Lubbock, Eric


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fowler, Gerry
MacColl, James


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gOW, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brawn, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Molloy, William


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moonman, Eric


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Clark, Henry
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythemhawe)


Coe, Denis
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Haseldine, Norman
Murray, Albert


Crawshaw, Richard
Henig, Stanley
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Phillip(Derby, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Heseltine, Michael
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Davidson,Jumes(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'th)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hornby, Richard
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howie, W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dell, Edmund
Huckfield, L.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)




Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Reynolds, G. W.
Sinclair, Sir George
Watkins, David (Consett)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben


Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Snow, Julian
Whitlock, William


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rose, Paul
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Swingler, Stephen
Winnick, David


Ryan, John
Taverne, Dick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wyatt, Woodrow


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Sheldon, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Edward Lyons and


Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. John Hunt.


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Varley, Eric G.



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Vickers, Dame Joan



NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Baker, W. H. K.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smart, William


Black, sir Cyril
Kerr, Mrs. Anns (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Braine, Bernard
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Teeling, Sir William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Crowder, F. P.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Currie, C. B. H.
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Dance, James
Maddan, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Farr, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wright, Esmond


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mellish, Robert
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Goodhew, Victor
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Harold Gurden.


Hall John (Wycombe)
Pink, R. Bonner

Question put accordingly, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House proceeded to a Division, but no Tellers being willing to act as

(2) A registered medical practitioner shall be guilty of an offence if he performs, assists or advises in the termination of a pregnancy permitted by this Act in consideration of a fee in excess of such fee as may be prescribed in regulations from time to time by the Minister of Health and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of £500 and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of £1,000.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it is proposed that we take Amendment No.59, in page 1, line 26, at end insert:
'who shall prescribe as a condition of such approval being granted or renewed the fees chargeable for treatment for termination of pregnancy in such place'
and the Amendment to Amendment No.60, in line 3, leave out from second 'of' to first 'and' in line 4 and insert 'seventy-five pounds'.

Mr. Rossi: Amendment No. 60 proposes to add a new subsection (2) to Clause 1. The object of the new subsection is to make it

Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 1, line 20, at the end to insert:

an offence for a medical practitioner to charge a higher fee than is prescribed from time to time by the Minister of Health. As a corollary, I seek to add to the existing subsection (2) of the Clause a provision enabling the Minister of Health, when granting permission for a place to be used as a clinic for the purposes of an abortion, to take into account whether that clinic is charging fees higher than those which might be prescribed by the Minister.

I realise that I am putting forward a novel proposition and, therefore, I move the Amendment with diffidence. It is a


novel proposition inasmuch as I seek to introduce into a Bill designed to remove penalties a new penalty which, as far as I can ascertain, has not previously been known to the law.

Secondly, there is novelty in the Amendment inasmuch as it seeks to prescribe means of regulating by law fees for a medical operation. Here again, I appreciate that it might be considered by some to be a thin end of a wedge for the control of private medicine and that there may be objections on that score. I recognise the novelty on both those counts. Nevertheless, with the Bill as a whole the House is creating a novel situation. It will be creating a new climate in social life. Inasmuch as we do that, I suggest to the sponsors of the Bill that a certain adventure is required on their part to depart a little further even in the law to ensure that the Bill does what, I believe, they seek that it will do.

I believe that in promoting the Bill, its sponsors have been greatly influenced by the work over the last 30 years of the Abortion Law Reform Association. The Secretary of that Association, Mrs. Alice Jenkins, a redoubtable campaigner for abortion law reform over the past 30 years, has written a book which significantly is called "Law for the Rich". I want to refer shortly to two passages from it which are directly relevant to the case which I seek to make out in favour of these Amendments.

Mrs. Jenkins writes on page 36:
Illegal operations now fall into two completely different categories: in the first, exceedingly dangerous operations are performed in an atmosphere charged with apprehension and, unless the patient's condition becomes immediately dangerous, are unaccompanied by post-operative treatment of any kind; in the second, secret but safe surgery is performed by qualified operators under asceptic conditions in hospital or nursing home. It is very strongly felt that this dual situation is unsatisfactory and unjust.

She writes on page 29:
I asked myself the question, 'If a woman tired with the cares of her existing family could thus have an unwelcome pregnancy safely terminated, could this help not be extended to poverty-stricken women in the lower income groups? Or must safe surgical termination remain the prerogative of the rich?'

It has been the avowed intention of the campaigners for abortion law reform ever a period of some 30 years to do away with the situation which apparently exists in the country that there is one law for

the rich and another for the poor and that whether or not a woman can safely obtain an abortion depends on the size of her own, her husband's or man friend's pocket. I ask the sponsors to consider an Amendment which seeks to further this aim, which is one of the main planks of their Bill.

During earlier debates, I have been impressed by the arguments advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who has warned the House repeatedly that rackets in abortion will develop if the Bill is passed in its present form. Fears have been expressed in many quarters that it could be a golden charter for a certain type of medical practitioner.

We have heard figures of illegal operations varying between 30,000 and 250,000 a year. If they are anything like accurate, it is clear that there will be a tremendous demand for the services of medical practitioners once the Bill becomes law. At the same time, we are all aware of the present shortcomings of the National Health Service, particularly in terms of hospitals and the availability of beds. We know, too, the great shortage of doctors and nursing staff. These are the traditional elements of supply and demand—the great demand that there will be for abortions, and the shortage of facilities in our National Health Service to cope with the demand. Here we have all the incipient ingredients for a widespread and extremely lucrative racket to develop.

12.30 a.m.

But that is not the only consideration, because experience in countries where abortion has been permitted for some time shows that women will be desirous of going to medical practitioners outside the State service to procure a speedy abortion in conditions of secrecy which they will feel will not appertain under the State service. Scandinavia is an example of this, and there is a reference to the problem in that country in the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This is another reason why large numbers of women will try to get an abortion performed outside the State service.

I am suggesting that a fee should be fixed for the carrying out of these operations, so that this racket is not allowed to grow, and so that the sponsors of


this Measure can achieve one of the objects for which they have campaigned for many years, namely, to ensure that a practice does not grow up in which, by paying a high fee, it becomes easy to get a speedy abortion in conditions of secrecy which will not be available to people not so well off.

In referring to my Amendment, perhaps I might draw attention to the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). My Amendment seeks to leave it to the Minister of Health to stipulate what the fee should be. I am not attempting to posit what it should be, because I do not think that I am qualified to decide that. One operation may vary from another, and the matter can be dealt with far more easily by the Minister acting in consultation with the profession.

The Minister will obviously want to confer with the official medical bodies on what is a right and proper fee to charge for this medical service. I am not seeking to impose a fee which is so small as to make it completely unattractive for a doctor to perform this operation. If I were to try to do that, I would be accused of carrying out a wrecking operation, and this is not my object. I am, therefore, happy to leave it to the Minister, in consultation with the professional bodies, to arrive at a right and proper figure which he will fix as a maximum to prevent a racket developing and to prevent extortionate fees being charged for this operation on women who are in dire distress, and who feel that because of the general circumstances they might not be able to get speedy treatment under the National Health Service. I hope that for that reason the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

I appreciate that there are possible objections. It might be said that it is not possible for the Minister to fix a fee which would cover all the different types of abortion operation which might be required to be performed. We know that there are various methods—there is the curettage method; the long spoon; the injection of iodine paste and the use of the vacuum pump, which are all relatively simple methods. Probably a small fee would be chargeable when these methods were used in the early stages of preg-

nancy. But at a late stage of pregnancy, where complications exist, it might be said that that fee would not be appropriate. Here again, it is possible for the Minister, by regulations, to say that if a doctor feels that he has earned more than the average prescribed fee because of some complication he can apply to the Minister for a plussage in the fee for the skill that he may have had to exercise in this operation.

This is a novel situation for the medical profession and may therefore be objected to strenuously by medical practitioners who have had to work under this system for many years. There are means whereby, through their own professional bodies—the taxing office of the High Court is an example—fees can be increased in the case of special circumstances applying. It is not beyond the ingenuity of man, and certainly not beyond the ingenuity of the Minister of Health and his Department, to devise regulations under which this could be operated fairly. That is all I seek to do.

I want to avoid the creation of a racket. I have been told of a gentleman, whose name I obviously shall not mention, but which has been given to me by a medical practitioner who has referred patients to him. This gentleman, who operates in the West End of London, performs about 12 operations per morning, at a charge of 120 guineas a time. The demand is there for him. But I understand that anyone who is unable to pay his fee receives short shrift from his receptionist.

Mr. Ogden: If the hon. Member thinks it is wise not to give that information to the House perhaps he will make it available to the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Rossi: I understand that it is fairly common knowledge, but if the Minister requires the name and address for his own reasons I shall be happy to supply them to him. I do not see how this will advance the argument one way or the other. I ask the hon. Member, however, to accept that the information I am seeking to give the House is genuine information, and that I have tested it carefully before seeking to use it here.
But with this Bill, couched as it is in the widest and vaguest terms, there exists a real inducement for certain types


of medical practitioners to be very easy in their consciences when deciding whether or not to abort. We have had a lot of discussion about the meaning of the word "risk". We have been told by the sponsors of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Rossi: My argument is that, for the incentive of a large fee, some doctors may interpret the Bill more widely than others. The word "risk" is qualitatively but not quantitatively defined. Any pregnancy could be a risk to a woman, and one doctor might offer to abort for a large enough fee, whereas another might say that this was not Parliament's intention and that he did not propose to abort. The Amendment would be a disincentive to the former kind of doctor. This is a real danger. There must be some bar to high fees when the demand will exceed the capacity of the medical service.
Amendment No. 59 is designed to prevent evasion, so that a doctor could not arrange with the nursing home to charge a high fee although he himself did not. Therefore, there should be a limit on doctors' fees and the Minister should be able to prescribe the fees of nursing homes and revoke their licences to perform abortions if there was abuse. This is vitally important. I hope that the Amendments will be acceptable to the sponsors, as they are on all fours with their motives.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I agree that this is a matter of great principle. I wish to see the law of abortion codified so that one does not have to rely on the Bourne case. What worries me is that the Bill is now in such a state that the result will be to encourage abortions to be carried out outside the National Health Service and not within it by men who are qualified but who are in private practice and taking a great deal of money for the operation. The Government are now sponsoring the Bill, so, with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), the Minister, who introduced a similar Bill many years ago, has a responsibility to get the matter tightened up and straight.
I do not agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) but I agree about the dimensions of the problem. Many doctors who have been indulging in the private practice of abortion are looking forward to the enactment of the Bill because it will add immensely to their rewards. Pregnancies will be able to be terminated much more easily.
Those of us who know a certain amount about the National Health Service, know that it is impossible for there to be many more terminations within it because of the amount of room available in the wards. Therefore many pregnancies will be terminated outside the National Health Service. Somehow, Parliament must provide against the dangers.
I do not believe that it would be right for the Minister to make a series of regulations dealing with private practice. It is vital that his relations with the medical profession should be such that he does not interfere with private practice, although encouraging members of the medical profession to devote more and more of their time to the National Health Service. I therefore reject the solution proposed in my hon. Friend's Amendment.
But that does not absolve Parliament from the duty of facing the problem and stating the maximum figure that may be charged. It is impossible to lay down a catalogue of prices for the different operations involved, but what we can say is that in no circumstances should the fee be more than a certain amount.
In my Amendment to the Amendment, I propose a fee of £75 because I would not regard that as unreasonable for a medical man carrying out this operation. But I happen to know that it is a good deal less than the fee that is being charged in some establishments by some doctors. If the House thinks the figure too high or too low, it is for the House to decide the appropriate figure and not for the Minister by regulation.
In Amendment No. 59, my hon. Friend is getting into very difficult waters in trying to prescribe what a nursing home may charge, presumably for the type of comfort and food it gives. Great difficulty is involved here. I doubt whether one could ask any Minister to deal with the problem of the nursing home. I


can think of one nursing home where any Ministerial interferences would be strongly opposed by many doctors—and the Minister knows the home of which I speak. It would not be wise to try to regulate in this way. What is important is to lay down a maximum fee for the operation when it is carried out outside the National Health Service.
I hope that the Bill will be so operated that these pregnancies are terminated within the National Health Service and not without it, but a great obligation rests on the Minister to see that beds are available throughout the regions so that gynaecologists can carry out these operations. At present they are not. I hope that he will intervene in the debate to tell us his plans for encouraging the termination of more of these pregnancies within the National Health Service.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As there is such a shortage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should address his right hon. Friend through the Chair and not by turning round towards his right hon. Friend. The reporters want to hear him.

Mr. Harris: As there is such a desperate shortage of maternity beds, what will be the situation when the Bill produces more abortions?

Mr. Turton: All the gynaecologists in my own regional board have written to me to say that, whatever the provisions of the Bill, no more pregnancies can be terminated than are being terminated now. They are liberal in their interpretation of the present law, following the Bourne case, but the beds are not available. In any event, it would simply interfere with the important gynaecological work which they are doing.
In operating the Bill, the Minister should see how he can prevent a racket from developing as I am afraid it will unless some provision such as this is made. One method would be to accept such an Amendment and the other lies in the Minister's power to give a higher priority to gynaecological wards in the regional hospital board building plans. Now that the Government have taken over the Measure, it is their duty to see that it works.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) raised an interesting point in the Amendment and one which we did not consider in Committee. We come to a series of Amendments which differ from those which we have been discussing in that most of them relate to the administration of the Bill once it becomes an Act. For quite different reasons from those outlined by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I think that, whatever views they take of the Bill, hon. Members expect to be guided in matters of this kind by the Ministers who will be responsible for carrying out the administration of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience, and I agree with what he said about the difficulty of introducing a new principle—this was in part conceded by the hon. Member for Hornsey—in that for the first time in private medicine we should invite the Minister to intervene with a welter of Regulations. This is a serious difficulty, and I do not see that we shall get round it. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is open to the obvious objection that if we lay down a maximum fee it may well be necessary with the decreasing value of money—even if he has selected the right fee now—to amend the Act to change it.
In talking about the likelihood of a racket and excessive fees, we must consider why high fees are charged now. I suggest that there are two reasons. One is that in some parts of the country medical thought is in favour of a very narrow interpretation of the law and practice of abortion. A gynaecologist in the London area addressed a meeting of hon. Members interested in the Bill some months ago. He told me that a considerable and noticeable proportion of his patients were referred to him by practitioners in the Birmingham area for legal abortions. They were referred to private practice because a particular school of thought existed in the area where the G.P.'s operated.
If the Bill is successful in its operation, and with the changing practice of medicine and the clear-cut state of the law with which the general practitioners will then be armed in arguing with the specialists, it may well be that this pressure of demand on the private practice


will ease off, because practice will become more uniform throughout the country over a period of time.
The second reason why high fees are charged is that people are under the impression when they seek an abortion in private practice that they must be prepared to pay a high fee because in part they are recompensing the practitioner for taking a risk at law. In this belief, some people have very high fees extorted from them. I hope that once the Bill is passed this factor in high fees will disappear.
One difficulty with both the suggestions before us is that part of the large fees charged is divided between a number of people. I think that the hon. Member for Hornsey has tried to meet the difficulty in Amendment No. 59, but not successfully. Part of the fee may go to the nursing home, and the anaesthetist may take a proportion. Once we embark on the road of regulation of fees, we shall have to go very far to create a comprehensive system.
The hon. Member for Hornsey is concerned that the Bill should not lead to racketeering, which is a substantial point. He says that his suggestion is one way to stop it, but I shall tell him of a parallel case, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). It is that of a doctor who was convicted a little time no of issuing a false private certificate to a soldier, certifying his inability to return to his unit because of ill-health. A big part of the prosecution case was that an excessive fee had been charged for the certificate, and that that was substantial proof that he had not acted in good faith.
Similarly, we must remember that the B.11 requires two practitioners to act in good faith. I think that a substantial part of a prosecution under the Bill would be that an obviously excessive fee had been charged and that this showed that the general practitioner acted from monetary motives and not reasons of good faith. That safeguard is still in the Bill, and therefore I do not share the fears about racketeering.
I am sympathetic to the reasons behind the Amendments, but, although we do not take responsibility in this, I suggest from the point of view of the sponsors that there are great difficulties

in them, and that we can meet their purposes in other ways.

Mr. Maude: While I do not think I share the faith of the sponsor of this Bill that the passage of the Bill will in fact substantially reduce over a wide field the fees which are charged for termination of pregnancy, I find myself quite unable to accept the Amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Indeed, while I perfectly appreciate and completely respect the motives which have led them to propose them, I believe they are wrong in principle. I cannot follow the logic of them, and I am quite certain that they would not have the effect which they believe they would have.
To take first the solution which my right hon. Friend suggests, the sponsor of the Bill is perfectly right, clearly, in saying it may be dangerous—I believe it is dangerous—for the Minister of Health to start interfering with the financial arrangements of private practice, but it must be infinitely more dangerous, if not ludicrous, for Parliament to prescribe and fix a figure which would need another Act of Parliament to amend it if it happened to be wrong in the circumstances of the market, the demand and supply, of this service at any given moment. This cannot be the right way to go about it.
1.0 a.m.
Indeed, it cannot be right for the Minister of Health to start prescribing fees in the private sector of the National Health Service. It is all very well to say that a racket will develop in this, but the purpose of the Bill is to make legal something which has hitherto been illegal, or at least, to clarify the doubts in doctors' minds as to whether it will or will not be legal. Are we to say that something which by Parliament is now made legal for doctors to do is something so immoral that the Minister of Health has to prescribe the fees to be charged for it? Surely common sense demands that, if there is a private sector in the medical service, in that sector doctors and surgeons should be free to fix the fees which, in the professional circumstances of supply and demand. seem reasonable, and which the traffic will bear?

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: Will not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the National Health Service Act, 1946, specific power is given to the Minister to prescribe by regulations the maximum fees which may be charged by private practitioners in National Health Service hospitals?

Mr. Maude: Yes, and, of course, he has been jolly careful not to do it, too, and for very good reasons, and I suggest that this is one of the most unsuitable fields in which to start.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Before the hon. Gentleman gets into too deep water, these fees were prescribed under his Government. They have just been abolished by me.

Mr. Maude: Yes, but I think the Minister would agree that the circumstances were slightly different—

Mr. K. Robinson: National Health hospitals.

Mr. Maude: Yes—because we are not here in this Amendment dealing with operations which are being performed in National Health Service hospitals. This is the point. What we are dealing with is something outside the National Health Service. Inside the National Health Service this does not really arise, and for the Minister to start prescribing a scale of fees for something which is legal and is done in the same way as other operations are performed in the private sector of the Service would be wrong and dangerous as a precedent.
But there is something more important, I believe, even than this, though that as a principle is important enough. It is this. Will it work? Will it have the effect which my hon. and right hon. Friends claim it will? I do not believe it will. Indeed, I believe that it may have precisely the opposite effect to the one which they think it will have. We are, as I have said before, purporting in this Bill to make legal certain things which are now illegal, or, at least, doubtful.
One reason why high fees are charged now is that in certain areas there is a restrictive attitude towards the interpretation of case law under the Bourne judgment. And in certain areas it may be physically impossible to increase the

number of pregnancies that are terminated owing to the shortage of medical manpower and facilities for caring for the patient.
There are two sides to the argument. One side can argue that if we legalise this, there is less reason for people to pay high fees, while the other side can argue that people will not be able to get it done legally under the new system, anyway. However, the moment the Minister tries to prescribe fees, he is attempting to judge the market price at which the supply and demand for this will be equated. This would be difficult and delicate for him to do, for if he got it wrong he would be driving people into a black market in this operation. This is an important argument against the Amendment. If the fees are fixed too high, there is no purpose in the Amendment. If they are too low, the effect of the proposal would be the opposite of that suggested. It would be attractive for doctors to go into the black market and perform these operations, if not illegally then at least in circumstances the opposite of those which my hon. Friend is trying to get accepted.
I am doubtful whether the passage of the Bill will prevent a lucrative black market in abortions from flourishing In any event, a wide sector of the public will remain ignorant that the Bill has been passed and will proceed roughly along the same path as before The desire not to come out into the open, but to keep this secret, will continue to make it only too easy for the unscrupulous practitioner to charge what fees he likes for doing this operation in certain conditions. For these reasons the House must reject the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): Most hon. Members will not dissent from practically everything the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said. There are also several errors of drafting in the Amendment which, by themselves, would rule out its acceptance.

Mr. Rossi: If the principle is accepted, I should be happy to accept any improvement of the wording the hon. Gentleman might suggest.

Mr. Snow: I deliberately said that the errors of drafting would make it unacceptable. There are also matters of


principle which would make it unacceptable. For example, it makes no reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is very much involved in this matter. The drafting includes penalties applicable to advice and the actual termination. It would therefore apply to any practitioner who gave advice only—for instance, the private general practitioner originally advising the termination—as well as to the practitioner carrying out the termination itself.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in January last the House accepted the general proposition, to which my right hon. Friend has referred in an intervention, that there should be no limitation of private fees charged by private practitioners to private patients outside the National Health Service—

Mr. Turton: No. The limitation was precisely on fees charged by private practitioners to their patients in National Health Service hospitals. That should be ma de clear. It is important.

Mr. Snow: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is quite right: I concede that in view of his experience one must pay great attention to what he has said. The limitation was in regard to private patients in beds in National Health Service hospitals, but I was getting to the general principle that if we accept that there should not be interference between the practitioner and his private patient in the National Health Service hospital, how much more should that principle apply to termination outside National Health Service hospitals? The House not having challenged that decision in January, it would not, in my judgment, be appropriate for a change to be made in the proposition that we should not interfere in the relationship between doctor and private patient.
Another criticism of the Amendment is that it does not distinguish between conviction by summary proceedings and conviction on indictment. In point of fact, the penalty embodied in the Amendment would be far too high for imposition by a magistrates' court.
Having dealt with Amendment No. 60, I come back to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whose desire is to impose an arbitrary fee. I think that that

point was well answered, if I may say so, by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that this is not a simple or uniform type of operation. Indeed, it has many combinations and permutations, and such a notional or arbitrary figure would not be applicable. Nor does it appear to lend itself even to a scale of fees—

Mr. Turton: What I am trying to lay down, although it may be inadequate, is the maximum amount that could ever be charged, therefore, presumably, for the most difficult case of termination.

Mr. Snow: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman meant, he did not say so, nor does his Amendment to the proposed Amendment make that distinction.
The argument I have just adduced regarding the acceptance by the House early this year of not interfering in the relationship between doctor and private patient applies equally to Amendment No. 59, but an additional curiosity about that Amendment is that, unlike that which I have just been discussing, it does not provide for there to be an offence committed by a doctor practising in an approved place or committed by the proprietors of an approved place.
We therefore feel that, in the circumstances, neither Amendment should commend itself to the House, since each, for one reason or another, conflicts with the decision taken last January by the House not to impose any sort of limitation on the charges made by the doctor to a private patient.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: At the time those regulations were passed, this Bill, as now, was not the law of the land. What is the relevance of saying that because the House earlier this year approved those regulations, it cannot go back on them? The purpose of the Bill is to change the status of the law and a great many things. It is quite irrelevant to say that because it went through then we cannot go back on it now.

Mr. Snow: I do not think the hon. Member can have understood the argument. Nor do I think the House should find it acceptable that from month to


month we should change the law in this way. The general proposition was not challenged by anyone. It was accepted by a Front Bench spokesman opposite. Although, contrary to what the hon. Member tried to imply, this is not a Government Measure, a considerable body of opinion on both sides of the House accepts it.

Mr. Bernard Braine: On the face of it, this Amendment is very attractive. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) argued it in most persuasive and attractive way. I think all of us are disturbed at the thought that abortion may be more easily available if one has the money to pay for it than if one has not.
I was astonished when the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) seemed to question the facts of life revealed by my hon. Friend. It certainly is the position at the moment and will be if and when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Ogden: I was certainly not questioning the information given by the hon. Member for Hornsey. I gather that it is well known to other hon. Members. I was trying to point out the difference between knowing of things reported in the Press and statements in this House. I was not challenging the information.

Mr. Braine: I am not quarrelling with that, but underlining the fact that under existing case law one can obtain an abortion in return for fees in circumstances where a doctor believes in good faith that if termination is carried out the life or health of the woman will be protected. There is nothing in the Bill to alter that.
I do not agree with the Amendment, but that does not mean that I am unhappy about it being put down. We are deeply indebted to my hon. Friend for tabling it. It is an Amendment which strikes at the heart of the Bill's deficiencies and the appalling attitude of indifference towards its consequences which the Government have so far shown, which was displayed a moment ago by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is an attitude of mind which I previously described—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is

not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Braine: I am very much on the Amendment, as I think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the Chair takes a different view. The hon. Member must have regard to the view of the Chair.

Mr. Braine: I was about to say that I am glad that this Amendment is being discussed, for two reasons. The first is that it reminds us that while the Bill permits terminations to take place within the National Health Service—which is what the public are being led to believe—it does nothing about the flourishing private sector within which so many legal abortions already take place. It focuses attention on that fact and it also reminds us that, precisely because of the Government's refusal to insist upon the Bill containing a number of safeguards which the leaders of the medical profession want, consultant gynaecologists within the National Health Service almost to a man have been alienated. Some have roundly declared, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made clear, that enactment of the Bill will not lead to any increase in the number of therapeutic abortions in the beds which they control. Even if they were of such a nature—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must try to relate his remarks to the Amendment. He must relate what he is saying to the size of the fees.

Mr. Braine: I am trying to establish that this Bill is a licence to increase the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in the private sector.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We are not discussing the Bill; we are discussing only a small Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North, will not intervene.

Mr. Braine: The difficulty is that, both in the Standing Committee and again in the House on Report, there has been a disposition on the part of some hon. Members not to face the facts of life where this topic is concerned. I am seeking simply to give warning that if, in fact, my hon. Friend's Amendment is


accepted, and the private sector is circumscribed, then far from this Bill increasing the number of therapeutic abortions, there will be a reduction. That is all I am saying and I think that is relevant to the Amendment before us.
I should like to adduce what are the facts supporting this contention, because they go right to the very heart of this Bill. These facts need to be hammered home again and again until those responsible wake up to the fact that what they are doing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman really is getting into a very wide discourse. He must relate his remarks to fees and the prescribing of fees by the Secretary of State. That he has not done so far.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is it not in order to ask whether a fee should be prescribed on the ground that there are more likely to be people outside the National Health Service who wish to pay fees? Is that not in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot rule hypothetically. The hon. Member must allow the Chair to rule on points as they arise.

Mr. Braine: Perhaps I may develop—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to develop what I have already given the House to understand is out of order.

Mr. Braine: This Bill is utterly and completely wrong unless it makes it possible to meet likely demand once it is enacted. Since it is impossible under present circumstances to increase the facilities, at least within the National Health Service, then it must follow, as night follows day, that facilities can be provided only in the private sector. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to bring under control the number of therapeutic abortions at present carried out for fees by laying down a minimum set of fees. It is left to the Minister to say by way of regulation what those fees shall be, and if not, then the House really must wake up to the fact that the Bill is a snare and a delusion.
I wish to draw attention to the first part of my argument, namely, that it is impossible to provide the facilities which the sponsors of the Bill have led the public to believe will be provided in the National Health Service. At last week's meeting of the B.M.A. a number of speeches were made on this subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. C. Pannell: Completely out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the: right hon. Gentleman will leave that matter to the Chair. I must ask the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) to come to the Amendment, or I must ask him to resume his seat. He is not dealing with any of the Amendments on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Braine: With the greatest possible respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to the realities of the situation which are being dealt with by the Amendment. For example, the Minister issued a Report only last week on the Health Service which revealed that there are now over half a million people waiting for admission to beds in National Health Service hospitals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not dealing with the Amendment, which makes it an offence for a practitioner to perform an abortion for a fee above that which is prescribed in the Amendment. The Amendment deals also with the question of the Minister's prescribing the level of fees. The hon. Gentleman has not in anything he has said come to the Amendment. I must ask him to do so.

Mr. Braine: Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am making the mistake of trying to relate the Bill to the interests of the women whom it is supposed to serve. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will assist the Chair by not intervening. I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman so many times to the fact that he is out of order that I must now ask him to resume his seat if he does not intend to come within order.

Mr. Braine: May I make it quite plain that I do not like the idea of singling out termination of pregnancy as one form of medical treatment where the doctor is rewarded with high fees. He is rewarded at the moment with high fees. The suggestion has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that a maximum fee of £75 should be fixed. I do not wish to tangle with my right hon. Friend, but a maximum fee would become the basic fee. My right hon. Friend completely forgets that operations for the termination of pregnancy may range from a perfectly simple operation taking a very short period of time—in some countries it is an operation which takes place in out-patient clinics—to an operation involving possibly great danger to the life or health of the woman concerned. Therefore, the suggestion which is made is completely unrealistic. It is fatuous to try to fix a fee for an operation of this kind, whether performed outside the National Health Service or in the Service, where, incidentally, there will be no increase in the number of therapeutic abortions, for the simple reason that not only do the facilities not exist but the gynaecological waiting list is increasing. I wonder how many hon. Members have consulted the Minister's Annual Report.
There they can see the figures, and this is relevant to the argument. On page 56 of the Report, issued last week, for gynaecology, the figure is an 84,000 increase—10 per cent. on last year alone.
1.30 a.m.
I am not prepared to give this Minister of Health the power to include in his Regulations a right to set up a scale of fees for something which this Bill will make perfectly lawful. My hon. Friend, the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) put his finger on the weakness of fixing fees. If one fixes the fee too high, one makes it impossible for a large number of women who have every justification for seeking therapeutic abortion. One may make it impossible for them to seek it and drive them on to the black market. If one fixes it too low, the private sector will be flooded out and doctors attracted from the National Health Service for the simple reason that the Service is incapable of coping with the likely demand.
The sponsors of this Bill and the Minister have not listened to proposals which would have helped to make it more acceptable to the medical profession. If attempts are continually made to limit that private sector, and that is the effect of the Amendment, I predict that the number of illegal abortions will rise.
I go further—and this is the message I am trying to convey—and say that women who have been led to believe that this Bill will provide reform and easement of a serious social problem will then rise up in anger at the way they have been deceived.

Mr. Percival: Everything comes to him who waits. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Louder and funnier. We cannot hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not want any silly comments tonight.

Mr. Percival: May I respectfully endorse that. We are now coming to a most important group of matters. We are dealing with the administration of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. Whatever differences there may be in principle, I am sure that everyone wants to see the administrative parts of the Bill working properly. We are dealing with a part of the administration which goes to the root of why so many have wanted to see reform in this matter.
This touches directly on dislike of so many rackets that have been going on. Whatever differences there may be among hon. Members about the Bill, the one thing nobody wants, be it unintentional, is to do the opposite and make it easier for rackets. One of the objects of the Bill is to try to cut out this racket, which is thoroughly immoral. This is where the number of abortions which may take place after the Bill is enacted is directly relevant to this Amendment. Having listened with interest to the discussion, I have been most impressed by the fact, of which I was not aware, that it is, apparently, accepted on all sides that the National Health Service could not cope with more abortions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: It would be dangerous automatically to make that assumption. I am doubtful


about it. Many of the cases in which illegal abortions are at present done are immediately admitted to hospital. It is, therefore, hoped that there will be a net gain, even though it will not be a large one, by allowing more legal abortions to be done.

Mr. Percival: I take the point. I recognise that in his professional capacity the hon. Member has more knowledge about this than I have. The fact that the fear exists that the National Health Service might not be able to cope, at least for some years, with the additional number makes the Amendment that much important.
The House would, I think, feel that unless the Bill results in a larger number of medical terminations, it will all have been a rather barren exercise. [Laughter.] That was not intended to be funny. I have always understood that we were endeavouring to liberalise the law because we feel that there are circumstances in which a pregnancy cannot be lawfully terminated when, on human grounds, one would want to see it terminated. Therefore, if we succeed in our object, it would seem that ex hypothesi the number will be greater.
That must import the danger that unless we are sure that the National Health Service can cope with that increase, the demand for abortions to be carried out by private practitioners will be that much the greater—I am putting this as mildly as I can—and there will be a tendency to strengthen the arm of the racketeer. That, broadly, is why I am so interested in the Amendment.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. and learned Member and many other hon. Members keep mentioning racketeers. Will he take it from me that we must not confuse, and he must not confuse, what goes on in certain parts of the West End of London with what goes on in the rest of the country, because I am sure that what he is describing does not go on anywhere else to the same extent as it does in the West End of London?

Mr. Percival: I am mightily relieved to hear it. Even if the "racket" is only in London, however, I for one want to stop it in the one place where it is. The fact that it does not exist elsewhere

does not lessen my desire to stop it in London.
I should like to get on with the point which I wanted to make and not be led astray by interventions. Having listened carefully to the argument, I feel, and I think that my hon. Friends who put forward the Amendment feel, that we have been much impressed by the difficulties to which our attention has been drawn in the method which we have sought to adopt to get at the difficulty that we have in mind.
I am rather disappointed that the speeches against the Amendment have been confined to picking holes in the Amendment, holes which, I think—I do not say this entirely critically—have been justifiable. I agree with most of the comments which have been made about the difficulties caused by the wording. I am disappointed, however, that I have not heard anybody make positive suggestions about what could take the place of what is proposed in the Amendment to secure the objective at which it is aimed.
Before this important debate ends, I hope that we shall hear a positive suggestion from a Minister. After all, Ministers are better equipped to deal with these problems, because they have those in their Departments who can produce the answers.
Nothing which I have heard has suggested that there is not a problem. The substance of the speeches so far has been that there may be a problem, but that this Amendment is not the way to deal with it. I accept that there are flaws in this attempted solution, but, in the absence of other suggestions, I hope that the House will give further thought to it.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maddan.

Mr. Maddan: When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) move his Amendment—

Mr. Simon Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would I be wrong in thinking that you called


upon me, and not the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan)?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if I did not speak clearly. I was being consulted at the Chair in the middle of the debate. I called the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan).

Mr. Maddan: When my hon. Friend moved his Amendment, I came to the conclusion that it was one which should be accepted. The introduction of artificial fee levels in an area where artificiality is not required will not conduce to anyone's good.
When the Parliamentary Secretary intervened, I hoped that he would give the House some cogent arguments. I have heard many Parliamentary Secretaries speaking in Committee and on Report, but I have never heard a reply which was so trivial and so unworthy of an Amendment. When a back bench hon. Member has drafted an Amendment, to say that it does not refer to Scotland or that it does not refer to magistrates' courts or to courts of session, and so on, is an insult to the House and to the mover. If he thinks that there is a case for it, he must say that there are defects, but the point is taken, and that a suitable Amendment will be moved in another place.
The hon. Gentleman is hoist on Morton's fork, and he thinks that he may be on the prongs, merely having responsibility for the Bill. That is one of the reasons why he steers this course, slipping down the U-bend of the fork.
Having made myself clear on what I think of the hon. Gentleman's reply in that respect, I want to go on to examine the only reason he put forward.
1.45 a.m.
Having said that there were some defects in the drafting—and he enlarged on these—the only other reason the hon. Gentleman gave was that earlier this House had taken a view about fees to doctors for performing in a private

capacity in National Health Service hospitals. To argue that because the House took a view in a circumstance which is to be changed, because we are going to talk about different matters following the passage of the Bill—The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is the Bill going to change circumstances, or not?

Mr. K. Robinson: No.

Mr. Maddan: That being so, I suppose it is a good reason for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to give it so much time to go through the House. It is either important, or it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the Bill is important, and whether too much or too little time is being given to it, are not matters which arise on the Amendment. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan: I appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, but it is rather difficult for hon. Members to consider important points when the replies which we receive from the Government Front Bench are as equivocal as they have been. The only point of substance to which the Parliamentary Secretary addressed himself was that we had previously taken a view about private fees of a different nature in different circumstances.
I started by thinking that the Amendment should not be supported, and I still have grave doubts about it, but, having listened to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and found it unsatisfactory, I shall find myself driven by that unsatisfactoriness into the Lobby.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 65.

Division No. 459.]
AYES
[1.48 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Archer, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Ashley, Jack
Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Astor, John
Bessell, Peter
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Binns, John
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bishop, E. S.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.




Cant, R, B.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Carlisle, Mark
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Quennell, Miss J. M,


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Rees-Davies, w. R.


Coe, Denis
Hornby, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor 


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howie, W.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crouch, David
Huckfield, L.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rose, Paul


Dell, Edmund
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Scott, Nicholas


Dobson, Ray
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'tti &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Kirk, Peter
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Skeffington, Arthur


Ensor, David
Lubbock, Eric
Snow, Julian


Faulds, Andrew
MacColl, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MaxweIl-Hyslop, R. J.
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Foster, Sir John
Millan, Bruce
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fowler, Gerry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walden, Brian (AN Saints)


Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Albert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Norwood, Christopher
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric
Winnick, David


Gresham Cooke, R.
Orbach, Maurice
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Hamling, William
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. John Hunt and


Henig, Stanley
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. Edward Lyons,


NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionet
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsdon, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-stevas, Norman


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Small, William


Currie, C. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Dunce, James
McBride, Neil
Tilnsy, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


English, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Wylie, N. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Mellish, Robert



Grant-Ferris, R,
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Halt, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Harold Gurden.

Question put according, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 146.

Division No. 460.]
AYES
[1.57 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Dempsey, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
English, Michael
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser.Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kerr, Mrs. Arms (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Glover, Sir Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jilt


Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)




McBride, Neil
Murton, Oscar
Tinn, James


Macdonald, A. H.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Percival, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pink, R. Bonner
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, N. R.


Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, Robert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Catheart)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John
Mr. Harold Gurden.


NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Orbach, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Fowler, Gerry
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Astor, John
Freeson, Reginald
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Goodhart, Philip
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Barnett, Joel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bessell, Peter
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Binns, John
Hamling, William
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Henig, Stanley
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Rose, Paul


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon.Tyne, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, R. W. (Shorediteh &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Sharples, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howie, W.
Sheldon, Robert


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Huckfield, L.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrye (Ayrshire, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)


Carlisle, Mark
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Coe, Denis
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Skeffington, Arthur


Crouch, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Snow, Julian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Judd, Frank
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kirk, Peter
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Taverne, Dick


Dell, Edmund
Luard, Evan
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dunnett, Jack
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Marquand, David
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maude, Angus
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ellis, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ennals, David
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Ensor, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Faulds, Andrew
Miscampbell, Norman
Wyatt, Woodrow


Fernyhough, E.
Molloy, William



Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Murray, Albert
Mr. John Hunt and


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Edward Lyons.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 61.

Mr. Dance: On a point of order. I wish to move that further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept that Motion at present.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, Amendment 61, in page 1, line 25, at the end to insert "said". This is purely drafting.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: I know that it is supposed to be drafting, but we ought to know exactly why it is necessary to clarify the Clause in this way. I understand that it is intended to make it clear that the Minister or Secretary of State referred to at the end of the subsection are the same as the Minister or Secretary


of State referred to at the beginning, but it does not quite do that. The phrase is,
approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister or the Secretary of State".
It therefore ought to read
or the said Secretary of State".
If we are trying to clarify it, we ought to say which Secretary of State it is. We assume that it is the Secretary of State for Scotland, but that is not clear. Nor is it clear in Clause 6, the Interpretation Clause—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must refer only to the drafting Amendment.

Mr. Hall: With respect, I was referring to that because I was pointing out that this is a drafting Amendment designed to introduce clarification where otherwise some doubt might exist and that it ought to go further. The House should have some further explanation before it accepts the Amendment.

Mr. English: I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that it is difficult to understand why "said" is inserted before "Minister" and not before "Secretary of State". This is not the only Amendment

by the Promoters which would have been unnecessary if they had accepted Amendments or even the Bill on this subject passed by another place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all the good will in the world, I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss whether the promoter should have accepted a Bill from another place.

Mr. English: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely making the point that the Amendment is necessary because of the ill drafting of the Bill in the first place. I should like to hear from the promoter why he wishes to insert "said" before one Minister and not before another.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 54.

Division No. 461.]
AYES
[2.10 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Colin (B'h'ee &amp; Spenb'gh)


Archer, Peter
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'oras,S.)


Ashley, Jack
Ennals, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Astor, John
Ensor, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fernyhough, E.
Judd, Frank


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Allce
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kirk, Peter


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lewie, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bessell, Peter
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Binns, John
Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fowler, Gerry
MacColl, James


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Millan, Bruce


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Molloy, William


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Murray, Albert


Coe, Denis
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Henig, Stanley
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Dewar, Donald
Hornby, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dobson, Ray
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dennett, Jack
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Huckfield, L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'tti &amp; C'b'e)
Hughes, Emrye (Ayrshire, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.




Richard, Ivor
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Sinclair, Sir George
Watkins, David (Consett)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rote, Paul
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Scott, Nicholas
Swingier, Stephen
Wyatt, Woodrow


Sheldon, Robert
Taverne, Dick



Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Edward Lyons and


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. John Hunt.


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B. H.
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dance, James
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Dempsey, James
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


English, Michael
Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Marion, Simon (Bootle)
Younger, Hn. George


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Clover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Harold Gurden.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Question put according, That 'said' be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 38.

Division No. 462.]
AYES
[2.18 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ennals, David
Kirk, Peter


Archer, Peter
Ensor, David
Luard, Evan


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
Lubbock, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James


Astor, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foster, Sir John
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bessell, Peter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miscampbell, Norman


Binns, John
Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bradley, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Murray, Albert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Bob(N'c'tIe-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hamling, William
Pardoe, John


Cant, R. B.
Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carlisle, Mark
Henig, Stanley
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coe, Denis
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Reynolds, G. W.


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hooley, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howie, W.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Dell, Edmund
Huckfield, L.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rose, Paul


Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Scott, Nicholas


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Sharples, Richard


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sheldon, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Ellis, John
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)




Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Winnick, David


Skeffington, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Snow, Julian
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wyatt, Woodrow


spriggs, Leslie
wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. John Hunt and


Swingler, Stephen
Whitlock, William
Mr. Edward Lyons.


Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W)



NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lever, L. M, (Ardwick)
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B M.
MacArthur, Ian
Tinn, James


Dance, James
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Dempsey, James
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Fortescue, Tim
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Harold Gurden.

Mr. Dance: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept the Motion. I might help the hon. Gentleman, and ask him not to move the Motion regularly at the end of every Division. Mr. Maude.

Mr. Maude: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from 'that' to 'there' in line 6, and to insert 'without immediate termination'.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to ask your guidance on a matter of some difficulty that arises in regard to this and the next following Amendment—Amendment No. 57—standing in the name of the sponsor of the Bill, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from 'necessary' to the end of the line and to insert
'to save the life or to prevent'.
It is quite clear that the two Amendments overlap in the text of the Bill, and therefore cannot both be carried in their present form. Mine is a purely drafting Amendment intended to tidy up the wording and put the meaning beyond doubt. Amendment No. 57 embodies a substantial point. While I believe it to be very difficult to discuss the two Amendments together, I do not quite see how, as they overlap and are incompatible, we can take them separately and carry both of them. I would therefore like your guidance whether or not it would be in the interests of the House that they should be taken together.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member says makes good sense. We will discuss the two Amendments together. If, when we come to the end of the discussion, the hon. Gentleman wished to press his Amendment, it would be possible to put the Question in a form which would save the sponsor's further Amendment. We will, then, take together Amendments Nos. 31 and 57, and with No. 57 we are already taking Amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 6, to leave out 'where there is a definite possibility of' and insert 'in order to avoid'. At the end I will, if necessary, put two Questions.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that we can divide on both Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. I said that I will put two Questions: whether the House divides is for the House to say.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Maude: I do not wish to detain the House at any length on this Amendment, which is a minor drafting Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who is absent abroad in the service of the House, and my hon. Friends take the view that this is a Clause which has been altered substantially several times.
This is one of the matters which have been drafted and redrafted in Committee in an attempt to get wording which was legally unexceptionable and to meet the


widely divergent points made by those who have interests in the reform of the law on abortion. We take the view that the wording which we have proposed, which refers to "immediate termination", completely meets the point which the promoters of the Bill wish to have met and which is in fact subject to no doubt or risk of being misinterpreted, whereas the words, "immediately necessary" are nothing like as clear. The word "immediately" in those circumstances might be considered to mean "very", or something fairly doubtful of that kind. I hope that the promoter will agree that this would make the legal meaning of the Clause clear beyond doubt and that it improves the wording of the Bill.
Amendment No. 57 arises as a result of trying to draft and redraft a difficult matter of this kind in Committee and on Report. Since there is clearly an overlap in these two Amendments, I should be perfectly happy if the promoters would give an assurance that they will look at the wording of the Clause again and if and when the Bill goes to another place try to tidy the wording. In that case I would not press this minor drafting Amendment to a Division.

Mr. David Steel: It was recognised in Committee that because we had accepted one Amendment which was not fully effective, subsection (3) would have to be looked at again on Report. As reported at col. 467 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee, I said:
I am not at all satisfied that even the revised version which the hon. Member has produced is what we will eventually want in the Bill, but we should take the Parliamentary draftsman's advice on this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 16th March, 1967, c. 467.]
I have since taken the Parliamentary draftsman's advice and as a result I tabled Amendment No. 57, which does not make any point of substance but takes out the rather clumsy phrase,
where there is a definite possibility of the death or grave permanent injury.
This is a tidying of the wording. If we were to carry Amendment No. 31, to take Amendment No. 57 as a whole would not make sense. I am faced with the alternative of taking one Amendment or the other. I hope that the House

will accept Amendment No. 57, but I shall look at the phrase, "termination is immediately necessary" and, if this is found to be a point of substance, we can change it.

Mr. Maude: I did not suggest that this was a point of substance, but I think it might cause difficulty in interpretation in the courts if it is not tidied up.

Mr. Steel: I shall look at what the hon. Member has said. The Amendment I have submitted should help to tidy this up, but I shall draw attention to the point the hon. Member has made.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I rise to make my first intervention of this evening. It is the first time that I have managed to get called, and I rise, first, to say that I consider this is an important Amendment to an important Clause—or perhaps I should say, group of Amendments—and it would indeed be ironic if the situation developed whereby, as a result of the passage of this Bill the position of a woman in an emergency would be worse than that prevailing before the Bill was passed.
Hon. Members may recall that it was during the Committee stage that I drew attention to this particular danger. There was, and there still is, some confusion as to the position under the common law and whether, in fact, the common law gives protection or is itself protected. My view was that it is not. The right hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said that the common law was protected and that, therefore, a provision of this kind was not necessary. The Clause as it stands requires that before an operation can be carried out, there has to be a second opinion and that the operation can be carried out only in certain hospitals and places designated by the Minister.
That is what is laid down, but it is quite clear that emergencies may arise—indeed, will arise—and it would be quite wrong that a doctor should be fettered by these conditions. There are cases which I will not go into, but the present drafting of the Clause was moved by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and, with great respect to him, I think that the words as they now stand do not make a


great deal of sense. If one reads the last part of the Clause it will be seen that these conditions
… shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary where there is a definite possibility of the death or grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
I say that there are too many Clauses all in that one part—[Interruption]—yes, too much in one subsection. Something has to be done to give that any literal sense, let alone any legal sense. This is yet another example of hasty drafting because the scope of the Bill was not sufficiently thought out in advance.
Amendment No. 31 would make an improvement to the Bill, but naturally one prefers one's own words and in my Amendment, which we are also discussing—that is, Amendment No. 32, I seek to leave out
where there is a definite possibility of",
in favour of inserting the words, "in order to avoid". This, again, is a question of choice of drafting, and I should be quite satisfied with an undertaking that in another place—and we are still, fortunately, a bicameral legislature—the opportunity will be taken to improve the Bill in this as well as in other ways.
I want to refer to Amendment No. 57. A number of rival Amendments were discussed in Committee. The Minister of State said that she was not satisfied with any of the wording that had been used and indicated that her Department would look into the whole question of the drafting and produce a suitable draft. Has the wording contained in Amendment No. 57 her approval? Was it drafted by her advisers? It is not a mere drafting Amendment. It contains a. considerable change of principle, because, whereas the Clause says that the particular safeguards supplied by the Clause can be suspended if the medical practitioner
is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that tie termination is immediately necessarily where there is a definite possibility of the death or grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
Amendment No. 57 provides that he should be
of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is … necessary".

The Amendment would lay down a very different standard. "A definite possibility" is preferable wording to "is necessary". It provides for a possibility which is wide, but there is a qualifying adjective there that it must be definite—that is, it must be real.
The wording is particularly important, for two reasons. Adequate protection must be given to the mother who is faced with an emergency threat to her health or life. Adequate protection must also be given to the doctor so that he can freely act in an emergency. There must not be wording which is so loose that it enables such safeguards as there are in the Clause to be avoided and permits a horse and cart to be driven through the Bill by means of the Clause, which has quite another purpose. Therefore, the Minister of State should give a full explanation of how this wording was arrived at and what her reactions are to—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to interrupt—

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Get on with it.

Hon. Members: What has it to do with you?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have proceeded in a very orderly way so far. I hope that no one will disturb that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall ignore the provocation to which I have been subjected. In fact, I have concluded the substance of my remarks. It is a foolish habit to provoke people when they are about to conclude. I had already been closured when I was rising to say we did not intend to divide the House against drafting Amendments.

Mr. C. Pannell: We do not believe you.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whether the right hon. Gentleman believes it or not does not concern me. I do not require him to withdraw his remark. It reflects more on his incredulity than on my veracity.

Mr. Speaker: The debate is degenerating at the moment. Let us keep it as it was.

2.45 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Should not the right hon. Member withdraw what he said—that he does not believe that?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I ask the Minis-of State to consider this carefully because this is the part of the Bill where wording is all important and the history of the drafting of this Clause will be of great interest to this House, and no doubt, to another place.

Miss Bacon: As several hon. Members have said, the clumsy wording of this provision is a result of an Amendment accepted in Committee to extend emergency provision by providing not only for danger to life, but also for cases where there is a possibility of permanent injury to health and, as has also been pointed out, I said in Committee that the wording would probably need altering on Report.
We have three alternatives. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), the one in the name of the sponsor of the Bill, and that in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). In each case, I dissent from those who say that the meaning is being altered. There is an attempt to improve the wording without altering the meaning of the subsection. I can tell the hon. Member for Chelmsford that the sponsor of the Bill sought our advice, and the Amendment he put down has been drawn up by Parliamentary draftsmen. This improves the wording without altering the meaning of the subsection. I think the House might well accept what the sponsor has suggested in Amendment No. 57. The hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that he will look at the matter again, but I believe that all three Amendments would improve the wording without altering the meaning. We prefer the version suggested by the sponsor.

Mr. Deedes: The right hon. Lady has referred to the Amendments as alternatives. That is hardly the case, but she is right that an undertaking was given at an earlier stage to look at the wording. I think that the wording suggested by the promoter is an improvement on what we have and I am happy to accept it.
What disturbs me is that the promoter took the advice of, and has had the advantage of, the help of Parliamentary draftsmen, but that it has apparently not occurred to them that the words to which we take exception, "termination immediately necessary" must be, to say the

least, ambiguous and capable of leading to misunderstanding, and need correction.
It is characteristic of what has happened in all too many stages of this Bill. I accept what the right hon. Lady says about the Amendment, that it is an improvement and represents the best advice. What is one to do when every effort has been made to bring the subsection to a satisfactory conclusion? Without our Amendment, and if we pass that put down by the promoter. the words "immediately necessary" remain in. I hardly regard that as satisfactory. They will have to be looked at again at a later stage.

Miss Bacon: Miss Bacon indicated dissent.

Mr. Deedes: The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is so. I cannot believe that this would be acceptable if it had to be put through the proper process of Parliamentary drafting.
Therefore, while I am willing to accept what the sponsor of the Bill has said, I must persuade the right hon. Lady that the two Amendments are not alternative. They refer to separate points. I am concerned that if the subsection is to make sense we should alter it but that, apparently, it must remain as it is.

Sir D. Glover: This is the first time tonight that I have intervened. I speak very much in the mood of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), with his sincere desire to get a Bill that will be acceptable and not hostile to an alteration in the law.
What worries me, not having been a member of the Committee, is the amount of time that we seem to spend on Report, when there has been a genuine difference of opinion in Committee, when we find time and time again that certain words have been inserted, taken out or put back. We are presented with three Amendments, two of which have been accepted for discussion and the third has not, each of them intended to produce a better form of words for the subsection. In no case—this is a great disadvantage—do we get the authority of a Law Officer of the Crown—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot to discuss tonight. Will the hon. Member come to the Amendment?

Sir D. Glover: I am debating the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult for me to make up my mind whether I prefer Amendment No. 31 or Amendment No. 57. I am not a lawyer. I accept the arguments which have been put for both those Amendments, because I think that each represents an improvement on the wording of the Bill.
This is an important matter. We are dealing with the risk to the life of a person. [Interruption.] What astonishes me with the interjections which come from many sides of the House during the debate is that people seem to forget that the whole debate deals with human life. Therefore, even more importantly than if we were dealing with a Bill about housing, it is essential to get the wording right. We are dealing with something which is fundamental to every person in the House.
Some of the interjections from those who enthusiastically support the Bill fill me with nausea. When dealing with something which will completely alter the law, everybody should realise that we are dealing with some of the most—

Mr. Speaker: I take the point made by the hon. Member, but he must come to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I am in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker. I am not a lawyer. I accept, having read it with great care and studied it, that Amendment No. 31 represents an improvement on the Bill. I also think that Amendment No. 57, put forward by the sponsor of the Bill, is an improvement on the wording of the Bill. No one with the authority of a legal background is in a position to give me advice before I make a decision about which of the two Amendments I prefer. The difference may become important when the legislation is the subject of litigation, and it is essential that the wording is right. What worries me is that I am not confident that the Amendments will produce the sort of Bill which nearly everyone wants to see.

Mr. Maude: It may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that, in my view, what the Minister of State said as she sat down is completely wrong. There is no connection between the two Amendments. They are not alternatives. They are on quite separate points and have nothing to do with each other.

Sir D. Glover: The right hon. Lady who is acting as our guide, philosopher and friend says that there is no difference, but I myself can see a difference. We have had no advice from her as to which—

Miss Bacon: They are alternatives.

Sir D. Glover: They are not. The House ought to have the advice of someone with more authority—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the same point again and again.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This is tedious repetition.

Sir D. Glover: I am doing my utmost not to delay the House. In a matter which is vital to the lives and well-being of a great many people, surely the House ought to have more authoritative advice as to which form of words is the right one. Unless we get that advice, I shall vote against both Amendments.

Mr. Maude: In view of the assurance which we have received from the sponsor of the Bill that he intends to look at this again and try to do something about Amendment No. 31 in another place, and if it is clear that there is no question of there being alternatives or of one being preferable to the other—they are different words, dealing with different parts of the Clause on quite different points—I beg to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 31.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 6 [Clause 1], to leave out from 'necessary' to end of line and to insert:
'to save the life or to prevent'.

—[Mr. David Steel.]

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the House appreciates the readiness of the sponsor of the Bill to look at this matter again. However, that can only be done in another place.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and others, I had a hand in seeking to strengthen this subsection in Committee, and I recall the promise being made in Committee that the matter would be looked at again on Report. It is for this reason that I rise in particular to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the


Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas).
3.0 a.m.
As to the merits of Amendments No. 57 and No. 32, I prefer the latter, and I would like to tell the House why. We are here concerned with circumstances in which the fact that a patient is pregnant may be unknown to the doctor who is carrying out an emergency operation, or, if the fact is known to him, he is faced with making an immediately decision to save his patient's life, or to avoid grave injury to her health. I have discussed this matter with leading members of the profession, and they are anxious that the law should be put beyond doubt in situations like this, however rare they may be.
One can envisage a situation in which a pregnant woman is involved in a serious road acident. It is necessary to carry out an immediate operation. The family doctor is not available. She is rushed to hospital in order to save her life. In the course of the operation, the surgeon may discover—and I take one example—an ectopic pregnancy, which I understand is a pregnancy that take place outside the uterus, an extremely dangerous condition—where an immediate termination is clearly indicated to save the unfortunate woman's life.
I have been assured also that circumstances could arise in an abdominal operation for some other purpose which, although it could not be said that the termination of the pregnancy was essential to the saving of the woman's life, without it there would be a possibility of the operation itself failing, or of grave permanent damage being caused to the woman's health.
The matter would turn really on the nature of the emergency and on the need to take a decision on the spot. Clearly the doctor must be free to exercise his judgment about removing the foetus from a dangerously ill patient so that his treatment for the condition which he has been called in to deal with is effective.
Having said that, however, I understand that all responsible medical opinion wishes to see subsection (3) worded as tightly as possible. It is essential that we provide no loophole for the medical racketeer to whom reference was made

in an earlier debate. The virtue of Amendment No. 32 is that it makes clear beyond a peradventure that the giving of discretion to the doctor to act without seeking a second opinion is to avoid the death of his patient, or grave permanent injury to her health, and that in all other respects the life of the foetus shall be preserved. This is the point.
It is often forgotten when we are considering this matter that a termination of pregnancy is the only operation which involves two lives, one of which of necessity must be terminated. Therefore I think that it is essential to make clear to the medical profession and to the courts exactly what Parliament is seeking to do. I recognise that this is a difficult and delicate matter. For myself, I would have preferred a Bill which, subject to the basic requirements which the Council of the B.M.A. and the Royal College laid down, would have left wide discretion in the hands of the medical profession.
If the advice had been taken to ensure that at least between the two registered medical practitioners—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendments. There are two before the House at the moment.

Mr. Braine: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I conclude by saying that because of the failure to listen to the views of those who sought to ensure that this matter was left in the hands of responsible and experienced practitioners, and because of the abdication of responsibility by the Government in this matter, it is necessary to spell out these matters in much greater detail than would otherwise have been necessary.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can my hon. Friend explain to people like me, who are genuinely confused, what is the difference between the words "to save the life" and the other words "to avoid the death"?

Mr. Braine: My hon. Friend may be right; there may be very little difference. On the other hand, there may be the world of difference in the Amendments. Unfortunately there has been no Law Officer of the Crown present to spell out to the House the precise legal meaning of the words which back benchers—

Miss Bacon: Miss Bacon rose—

Mr. Braine: I will give way when I have finished my sentence. There has been no Law Officer of the Crown present throughout the proceedings to explain the precise meaning of these words. The purpose of my argument is to point out that when the sponsor of the Bill considers these matters he would be wise, in the interests of the Bill, the medical profession and, above a, the women whom we are seeking to help, to ensure that the words are as clear as they can possibly be. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have said this before."] I should have thought that clarity in a matter of this kind was important. I should have thought that as the views of the medical profession in this matter had been flouted up to now it was high time to recognise that if the Bill is to work it is necessary to pay some regard to the advice they have given.

Miss Bacon: I do not think that a Law Officer of the Crown is necessary in order to see that the words
is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury
are exactly the same as the words,
is immediately necessary in order to avoid the death or grave permanent injury".

Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady has not made reference to the words in the Amendment to which I am speaking, which are
where there is a definite possibility
It is a very important safeguard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The words "definite possibility" are out in both Amendments.

Mr. Braine: I do not wish to detain the House, except to emphasise once more that—[Interruption.] One would imagine from the hilarity with which same hon. Members opposite treat this matter that this is of no great concern. We are dealing here with matters of life and death. We are dealing here with fie ethics of the medical profession—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must speak to the Amendments.

Mr. Braine: For these reasons I hope that when the sponsor of the Bill considers what form of words he should use he will bear in mind the considerations that I have adduced.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I have tried to listen to all the debate. I do not have a great deal of knowledge, but before we leave the Amendments we must know what we are deciding and what the differences are. I am surprised to hear it suggested that the words which are at present in the Bill—
where there is a definite possibility
have been removed. Amendment No. 31 dealt with other words. We have three choices—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have two choices now one has gone.

Mr. Taylor: The third would be to do nothing at all. We could accept either Amendment or reject both. The difference between the two Amendments may seem largely a matter of semantics, but neither would leave the meaning of the Clause unchanged. The present wording, "definite possibility of", is not directly related to a termination, which might result in a death anyway, whereas the Amendments are. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will help those of us who are confused and explain why we should accept either Amendment.

Mr. Hogg: The sponsor is right; the only sensible thing is to pass the Amendment in this form. The omission of these words would be an improvement, because there is nothing more indefinite than the phrase "definite possibility". I hope that the House can conclude that this is the only possible rational course.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 141. Noes, 32.

Division No. 463.]
AYES
[3.13 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Biggs-Davison, John


Archer, Peter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Binns, John


Ashley, Jack
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bishop, E. S.


Astor, John
Barnett, Joel
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward




Bradley, Tom
Hamling, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hastldine, Norman
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, R. W. (Shoredltch &amp; F'bury)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ryan, John


Coe, Denis
Howie, W.
Scott, Nicholas


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, L.
Sharpies, Richard


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dell, Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hult, W.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Snow, Julian


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Swingier, Stephen


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Luard, Evan
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Ellis, John
Lubbock, Eric
Tinn, James


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Macdonald, A. H.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foster, Sir John
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Freeson, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Younger, Hn. George


Glover, Sir Douglas
Murray, Albert



Goodhart, Philip
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Edward Lyons and


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. John Hunt.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Braine, Bernard
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Dance, James
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Farr, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Harold Gurden.

Clause 2.—(NOTIFICATION.)

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, Amendment 62, in page 2, line 21, after 'be' to insert 'so'.
This is purely drafting, but as on the last occasion we had a Division because it was alleged that I had not explained the precise meaning of a drafting Amendment, I will try to explain why "so" is necessary at this point. Most laymen would think it hardly a point of substance, but it is felt by the draftsmen that "so" in line 21 would pick up the reference in line 15 "be prescribed by the regulations". The inclusion of "so"

makes it clear that "as may be so prescribed" also refers to "prescribed by the regulations". I should have thought it obvious, but the Parliamentary draftsmen feel that it is necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker rose—

Sir Knox Cunningham: Sir Knox Cunningham rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members must learn to retain their seats when Mr. Speaker is on his feet. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Even though a drafting Amendment is a minor Amendment, it is a reasonable courtesy, which the sponsor has now extended to the House, to explain its purpose. It is not the intention of those who oppose the Bill to oppose drafting Amendments which improve the Bill or to divide against such Amendments. I should like to make it plain. There was a Division on the last drafting Amendment only because we were provoked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).

Sir Knox Cunningham: Having waited for the appropriate time, may I say a word on the Amendment? [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I appreciate very much what the promoter said. I should have thought the Amendment unnecessary. Is it needed because "so" also appears in paragraph (c)—in line 23? That, too, will link with paragraph (a). If that is the case, it would be clear that "so" in subsection (1,b) would also link up. I agree that probably in both cases it is unnecessary.
That is all I want to say. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's explanation of this drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Amendment No. 35, with which we are taking the following Amendments: Amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'for' to 'of' in line 23 a and insert:
'strictly prohibiting the disclosure, except to such persons as shall be specifically named by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for purposes of research or medical study'.
Amendment No. 37, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'or information furnished'.
Amendment No. 38, page 2, line 25, at the end insert:
'but such regulations shall not prohibit the disclosure of such notices or information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, a Procurator Fiscal, a chief constable or to a police superintendent'.

Mr. Braine: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
(2) No person shall disclose any information obtained under subsection (1) of this section save upon an order made by a court of law:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Minister and the Secretary of

State from compiling and publishing such statistical information and comment thereon as may be prescribed in the regulations made under subsection (1) of this section.
I recognise that there is a sharp division of view on the question of notification. The medical profession is anxious to ensure strictly limited disclosures of information which the notification procedure will provide, while others may feel genuinely that the notification requirements should be such as to provide an effective check on the development of rackets.
The Bill did not originally insist on the Minister making any regulations. This is only one of the many defects that we managed to correct in Committee. It was right to do so because the notification provisions are essential to the Bill's purpose. The sponsors hope that it will lead to an increase in the number of therapeutic abortions and a decrease in the number of illegal abortions. If their hopes are to be fulfilled there will be an increasing pressure on the time and resources of the hospital service. There will be an increasing demand—

Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman must come to his Amendment, which is to substitute the subsection on the Notice Paper for paragraph (c).

Mr. Braine: Of course, Mr. Speaker, but it will be necessary for those responsible for health policy generally, and the National Health Service in particular, to have full information on a number of matters, such as the number of abortions carried out both in the National Health Service and the private sector, the grounds on which they are authorised, any special factors or complications, and the trends which the information reveals. It is only by such means that we can ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the demand. This is the reason for the notification procedure in the first place. No one would quarrel with that. But this provision is new to the law, which at the moment requires no notification of a termination of a pregnancy as such, except in the case of still birth.
The late Lord Brain, who was a considerable authority in these matters, warned when Lord Silkin's first Bill was before another place:
The implications of any system of compulsory notification of the termination of


pregnancy require careful consideration by the medical profession.
That consideration has been given by the British Medical Association and, by and large, the medical profession holds very strong views about the use to which the notification procedure may be put. According to paragraph 200 of the last B.M.A. Annual Report,
The Central Ethical Committee … emphasises that such notification is acceptable only on a doctor to doctor basis and that no disclosure of the details of such notification should be permitted other than upon an order of a Court of Law.
3.30 a.m.
That is precisely the Amendment which I am proposing. Perhaps I should explain that this concern for professional secrecy does not arise, as a layman might suppose, from any desire to protect doctors. On the contrary, the profession is as anxious as anyone to ensure that a doctor who behaves unlawfully, unethically, or irresponsibly is not protected from the full rigour of the law or from the censure of his professional colleagues. In this instance, the concern arises from the need to protect the interests of the patient, and that is the purpose of my Amendment. Patients must feel entirely free to consult their doctors on any medical matter and they are entitled to have such matters discussed with their doctors treated in complete confidence. I would have thought that this is particularly necessary in this delicate and difficult field where a great effort of will is necessary in the first place, for a woman faced with this dilemma, to consult a doctor.
Indeed, unless there is complete confidence and confidentiality from the start women simply will not consult their doctors. I am told that fear of disclosure, especially in cases where a woman does not wish her family to know she is pregnant—or where a married woman, who is pregnant by another man, does not want her husband to know—is one of the reasons why in many countries which have liberalised their abortion laws there is often an increase in the number of illegal abortions. Here I should like to quote from the report of the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, because this is particularly relevant to the Amendment. It says that

there is evidence to show that, except in those countries where abortion on demand and without inquiry is permissible, the legalization of abortion often resulted in no reduction and sometimes in a considerable increase in the number of illegal abortions. This is because those women who aim to be rid of an unwanted pregnancy are so concerned to preserve secrecy or to avoid delay that they continue to seek help from unorthodox sources. In the meantime, the legalization of abortion alters the climate of opinion among the public and even the Courts of Law. The result is that criminal abortion becomes less abhorrent, and those guilty of the offence receive punishments so light as not to discourage them and others in their activities. The total effect is that women are increasingly ready to have pregnancies terminated and potential criminal abortionists are less reluctant to help. The experience in Japan is illustrative of this situation. There, during the years immediately following legalization of abortion on socio-economic as well as medical grounds it is reckoned that when the number of legal abortions rose to one million per annum the number of illegal abortions was also one million per annum. In Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where abortion is induced freely, the number of abortions other than legal treated in hospital in 1961 was approximately the same as in the years before the introduction of abortion laws.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am finding it difficult to see how the hon. Member is relating this to his Amendment, which substitutes the court for the Minister. Perhaps the hon. Member will help me.

Mr. Braine: I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the notification requirements should be such as not to induce in the mind of a woman who ought to seek advice from a doctor a state of fear that, if she does so, there is a danger of the information leaking to third parties. It is the burden of my argument that if women are to be encouraged to seek proper medical advice on termination of pregnancy without being worried about a possible breach of confidence, then it is essential—and the British Medical Association have made this point very strongly—that notification must be to a central point, namely, to the Chief Medical Officer at the Ministry of Health and the Home Office, and that there should be no disclosure to third parties save by an order made by the court. This is the view of the responsible leaders of the medical profession.
In any event, the police should be the only third parties to have access to the records. I see the force in the argument that the notification procedure, reinforced by subsection (3), would be a check on


illegal abortions and that it might help to bring to notice suspicious circumstances, which would result in the authorities looking more closely at the matter, with a view to possible action. I recognise too that the police have a duty to investigate allegations of crime and must be in a position to satisfy themselves by consulting the records whether there is a possibility of the law being broken. But at what level are these inquiries to be made?
Fortunately, an earlier attempt to write into the Bill a provision to the effect that notification should be to medical officers of health was unsuccessful. I am not saying that medical officers of health and their staffs are unreliable, of course not, but in smaller communities—and we are dealing here with a psychological problem more than anything else—a notification and the woman to whom that notification refers are more likely to be of interest. The woman may live next door to the secretary of the medical officer of health. She may be the most discreet person, but the woman may be put off from going to her doctor because she fears that somebody she knows may learn of the facts of her condition. The same argument applies to police officers, especially in rural areas, where people seem to know a great deal more about one another's business than is the case in urban communities.
Assuming that the sponsors will not accept the Amendment, rather than that the Clause should remain as drafted, I would be happier if they would accept the proposal in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. John-Stevas), which would certainly reduce the number of people who would have power to probe into what the woman concerned must regard as an intimate, private and secret matter. My Amendment, on the other hand, would provide the best possible safeguard for the patient. It would ensure that when she consulted her doctor, she could be certain that her secret would be safe in his hands.
Obviously, the essential facts concerning case must be notified to the central authority. It is essential that the Minister should have detailed information about the facts and trends. This information has been lacking hitherto and the whole question of abortion has been be-

devilled by this lack of information. I am arguing, therefore, that the woman should feel confident that her secret is safe with her doctor and that only in the rarest cases—and then only on the action of a judge—would a third party be made aware of the circumstances in which her pregnancy was terminated.
So little attention has been paid, either by the Bill's sponsors or the Government, to the safeguards for doctor and patient that I must insist on dividing the House on this issue if I do not receive convincing assurances that the principle of confidentiality in the doctor-patient relationship will be preserved.

Mrs. Knight: The Clause is so vague that it is almost incomprehensible. Too frequently Parliament passes legislation which is not clear. Of any legislation that should be clear, it is absolutely vital that legislation which refers to this aspect of life should be entirely clear. We may be able to afford ambiguity elsewhere, but not here.
An example of what impelled me to table Amendment No. 36 is to be found in lines 15 and 16 of page 2:
… for requiring the preservation and disposal of certificates. …
I was in some confusion as to what those words meant. I looked up the word "preservation" in the dictionary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not dealing with paragraph (a), but with her own Amendments and other Amendments on the Notice Paper related to paragraph (c), which deals with the question of disclosure of information, and not notification.

Mrs. Knight: I submit that in this particular it is essential to have clarity, and it is in a search for clarity that these Amendments have been tabled. If there is to be ambiguity it is a matter of very great—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: None of the Amendments deals with notification, but with disclosure, which is an entirely different matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will speak to the Amendments.

Mrs. Knight: I am striving to do so, and to indicate why we felt that this part of the Bill needed very grave consideration because of what is involved.
The disclosure of information obtained by this Clause is a matter for very grave concern, because the regulations referred to in lines 15 and 24 are most vague. We do not know what regulations are to be. In line 21 we find the words "as may be prescribed." One reason why we find ourselves in such difficulty is that the Minister of Health had already dodged responsibility for a very important part of the Bill and has here expressed himself as being totally unwilling to accept responsibility. Yet notification will rely very heavily on such responsibility as the Minister may or may not undertake. Our Amendments seek to make the regulations clearer.
There is no doubt that if we do not get this part of the Bill right we shall be driving women in this predicament straight into the arms of the back-street abortionists. It may surprise the sponsors of the Bill to know that of all operations this is the one that a woman would most want to remain highly secret. She would possibly be reluctant to have details of any other operations disclosed, but for her it is absolutely vital that this operation should remain a quite secret procedure. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Bill that these provisions will stop back-street abortionists and the worry of it is that this part of the Bill will encourage them. As it stands, the Clause will actively encourage them. The fine they may face is laughably low.
3.45 a.m.
The facts which have to be notified should not be merely prohibited but strictly prohibited from disclosure. Those facts include the name, the address and age of the woman, how many children she has, and whether her husband agreed to the abortion. We discussed this in Committee without reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Why the abortion should be carried out is a piece of information which is vitally important. Another is, how soon did the woman become pregnant again after the abortion?
All these facts are essential if the Clause is to be useful. Having tabulated all these facts, it is absolutely essential from the woman's point of view that she should know that disclosure of them will be strictly prohibited except to certain

people specifically named by the Minister of Health. I hope that he will have the courage to take the responsibility, which is his, to name these people so that it is perfectly clear to whom the facts should be disclosed.
Notification is for the purposes of research or medical study. That is very important. A pious hope was expressed in Committee that this Clause would be a safeguard, but there was disagreement between the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and the sponsor of the Bill. I looked this up to see exactly what was said, because I thought this most important. The hon. Member for Sutton said that notification was for research purposes and not as a safeguard, but the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said that was not correct, this was needed in the Bill as a safeguard and that was what it was intended to be.
Whether or not it is a safeguard is by no means clear from the Bill as it is now before us. For the sake of the woman it is essential that this should be more carefully clarified. Whether it is meant as a help to medical research or to safeguard the position and not to encourage women to have abortions, let us be clear that it will be successful. Without these Amendments I do not think there is any hope of that. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be wrong in principle to deny entirely access to this information for the purposes of the law. We discussed that carefully in Committee. We do not know to whom this information would be made available. We do not know how carefully it would be guarded or whether the woman would feel, as the information was tabulated, that she was protected by a cloak of anonymity.
We should have more detail on these vague, ambiguous phrases. This, I think, arises on another group of Amendments to which we shall come later. This, I believe, is so. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am not clear what it is that the hon. Lady is referring to.

Mrs. Knight: Because there is such a fog over some of this part of the Bill, I am asking if we are to discuss Amendment No. 39 and Amendment No. 41. If


so, I would presume that I should be out of order in referring to them now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady knows that we shall proceed as the Amendments are on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Knight: Then the Amendments to which we now address ourselves are perfectly clear, and I hope that the sponsors of the Bill and, even more important, the Minister of Health, will address themselves to this subsection as it now stands. It is far from satisfactory and will force women to go to back-street abortionists rather than to registered practitioners because of fear that their abortions will be made known, and because it is not clear to whom they will be made known.

Mr. David Steel: I would refer first to the hon. Lady's comments on Amendment No. 36. Here, again, I find her to be exceedingly illogical in her attitude to the whole matter. If we accepted her Amendment, then the whole point of notification as a safeguard would disappear completely. There would be no point in making it a criminal offence not to notify unless there was a failure to notify for purposes of research—unless there was a failure to supply statistical information. That would be the effect of Amendment No. 36 if it was accepted, whereas, as I have always envisaged it, one of the safeguards we are introducing is that every abortion, whether done in private practice or in a National Health Service hospital, must be notified. We have tightened that up already in Committee by saying that there must be notification to the Chief Medical Officer in London and Edinburgh respectively.
That means that every abortion which is considered to be within the law must be notified, so that the Ministry of Health in England and the Department of Health in Scotland are able to say where the abortions are taking place. As the Clause stands, we have under control every semi-legal and illegal operation, but acceptance of the hon. Lady's Amendment would mean that the matter could be notified only as something of academic interest. The hon. Lady is knocking away one of the safeguards against racketeering in abortions.
To come to Amendment No. 35, I accept the argument put forward by the

hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) about the importance of the confidentiality of this information, and about the importance of assuring patients that the information will be treated as being confidential. I point out to him that we have ensured this by stipulating the two people to whom the information may be sent. The hon. Gentleman wants to go further and asks that the information will never be disclosed without a court order. That is going rather far. We see in subsection (c) of this Clause that the Minister of Health may make regulations specifying and limiting the people to whom this information shall be disclosed.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the views of the B.M.A. I have not discussed this with the Minister, but I should be surprised if the Minister made regulations without asking the B.M.A. what its members thought. This is one of the matters for the Minister and the professional bodies concerned.

Mr. Antony Buck: I have great sympathy with the point which has been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I am not entirely happy about Amendment No. 35, which would provide that
information obtained under subsection (1) of this section
shall not be disclosed
save upon an order made by a court of law".
At the moment there is no procedure whereby such an issue could be brought before a court of law.

Mr. Graham Page: Would it not be possible in proceedings for a subpoena to be served on the person who had the information and for him then to disclose it? It would not be necessary for the subpoena proceedings to be brought for the information. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) is thinking of proceedings in which a subpoena might be served on somebody with the information.

Mr. Buck: If that system were to be adopted—I doubt whether it would be possible for it to be adopted—the court would then have criteria on which it was to be allowed. There is nothing laid down here as to how the court shall


determine whether the person shall be required to disclose the information. Something like that would have to be necessary before the court would know when the information is to be disclosed. The Amendment merely refers to an order of the court. We are not given any guidance as to the circumstances in which it would be thought appropriate for the court to order the disclosure of the information. If my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East seeks to interrupt me on this, I shall give way, because I should be interested to hear about the circumstances which he has in mind in which the court would allow information to be disclosed. For this reason, it is a little difficult to see how Amendment No. 35, if it were accepted, could work. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's reasons for tabling the Amendment, because we are entitled to have—no doubt we shall have in a few moments—further information from the Minister as to the classes of people to whom he expects the information will be disclosed.
I think that Amendment No. 36 would not be acceptable to a majority of the House unless Amendment No. 38 were to be accepted. The main objection to this Amendment would not arise if Amendment No. 38 were to be accepted. I see the sponsor of the Bill nodding in acquiescence. If Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 were to be accepted, the situation would not be in any way unsatisfactory. I thing that the sponsor of the Bill would agree with that. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's view.

Mr. David Steel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take my nodding as indicating my agreement to the course of action he suggested. I think that it would be objectionable to allow any police superintendent to have access to this information.

Mr. Buck: I think that perhaps police superintendent goes too far, but in Committee the Minister of State accepted that people of about that category should be allowed access to this information. We should be interested to hear further from her about this. She said this in Committee:
The Regulations, when issued, might refer to police superintendents. chief constables or people of that description."—[OFFICIAL RE-

PORT, Standing Committee F; 16th March, 1967, c. 507.]
In Committee apparently the Government's intentions were that the regulations would be likely to refer to a similar category of persons to those mentioned in Amendment No. 38. Now what the House awaits is an explanation from the Minister—we hope that it will be a full one—as to the people whom she expects will be mentioned in the regulations.
If this explanation is given, I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides will be well satisfied, though many of us have not any great liking for legislation which gives a wide power to delineate these matters by regulations. The House awaits an assurance and a close guarantee as to the categories of people it is envisaged will be mentioned in the regulations.

4.0 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: My hon. Friend explained that it would be very difficult to have an order made by a court of law. Would it be possible to have something in a form analogous to a writ of summons or originating summons, if it were thought desirable that this information should be disclosed only by a court of law?

Mr. Buck: Without further legislation, I doubt whether it could be done, even by regulation. The principal difficulty is that a court of law is not given any guidance how and in what circumstances it should allow information to be divulged. It is possible that the rules of the Supreme Court might, without further legislation, be allowed to provide for such an issue to come before a court, but the court would be totally at a loss how it should be done. If a principle were to be decided on and a fuller Amendment made in another place, it might be done, but it is difficult to see how the court would be left in anything but a state of total confusion.

Mr. K. Robinson: In the event of the Bill reaching the Statute Book, regulations to be made will fall to be made by me. It is appropriate that I should put the Government's view in that event.
The Government agree that information about abortions furnished in accordance with regulations under Clause 2 should be treated with strict confidentiality, but


if the law is to be enforced, including the requirements of notification, it is essential that with due precautions there should be access to the records. Having said that, we think it undesirable to specify in the Statute who is to be allowed access to the records.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who moved Amendment No. 38, the main Amendment, expressed fears and doubts and anxieties which had been expressed by certain of the medical profession at early stages.
I can assure the House that the course the Government are recommending after further consideration has been found acceptable to the chairman of the B.M.A. committee which was set up specially to consider this Bill. He appreciates that it would be necessary for the police to have access to this information.

Sir D. Glover: This is about the first time that I do not think that medical interest is paramount. A lot of other things come into consideration but doctors are, for the first time, not paramount.

Mr. Robinson: I was not aware that I was suggesting anything of the kind. I was replying to a point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). The spokesman for the medical profession has taken a later view.

Mr. Braine: Speaking at the summing up on this subject, at the B.M.A. some days ago, the chairman said that a satisfactory assurance that details of notifications required under the Act could be kept confidential was needed. Am I to understand that what the right hon. Gentleman tells the House has emerged since the statement was made?

Mr. Robinson: It emerged in a letter tilted 3rd July in response to a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State conveying the same assurances that I have just given to the House about what the Government's intentions would be.
If I may deal with the details, I well understand the anxieties of the proposers of both Amendments that too ready access to abortion records would defeat the principle of confidentiality, but we feel that this difficulty is better met by restricting disclosure to police officers

above a certain rank. I do not want to argue at this stage what that rank should be. The regulations would specify that it would be police officers above a certain rank or other officers acting on their authority. We feel that these details can best be worked out in drafting the regulations.
I repeat the assurance given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that in drafting the regulations there will be the fullest consultation with the medical profession. Certainly, it is not envisaged that there would be anything like a routine police inspection of the records or that the police would be free without specific grounds to scrutinise them for evidence of offences.

Mr. Buck: In those circumstances, will the Minister consider with his colleagues whether, in another place, it would not be better to say so, and to say "such police officers …"? If he confines it to police officers, are the words "or for such purposes" necessary?

Mr. Robinson: It is not confined entirely to police officers, because there are the questions of statistics and research workers. I am firmly of the view that it is better to leave this in the form of a regulation-making power and to consult the interested bodies on the detailed drafting of the regulations, which the House will have an opportunity of debating in the normal way.
In Amendment No. 36, the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) would go further still and deny access totally to the police. Therefore, what I had said in response to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East applies a fortiori to what the hon. Lady's Amendment seeks to do.

Mrs. Knight: The Minister is not accurate in what he has just said. If he reads my Amendment carefully, he will see that it says
to such persons as shall be specifically named by the Minister of Health".
My Amendment does not seek to say precisely which persons shall be named but is intended merely to make the position clear. As I made clear earlier, I would not by any means oppose what


the Minister seeks to do. My Amendment does not, however, specifically say that police officers are excluded. I leave it to the Minister by the wording I have used. I merely asked him to have the courage to take the decision and tell us what it is to be.

Mr. Robinson: I apologise to the hon. Lady if I misrepresented what she sought to do. I assure her that I will have the courage. The only difference between us is when the courage should be displayed. I believe that it will be better displayed when we draft the regulations.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) intends to move Amendment 38.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas indicated assent.

Mr. Robinson: I thought that conceivably he might, but I had not noticed his presence earlier—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment 38 has not been selected other than for debate.

Mr. Robinson: I understand that it has been selected for debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. It has been selected only for debate.

Mr. Robinson: All that I wanted to say, in anticipation of what the hon. Member for Chelmsford will say if he intervenes in the debate, is that an Amendment doing the opposite is equally inappropriate, because it is not clear whether his intention is that the regulations should permit disclosure only to the persons named. If that is the case, it does not go far enough.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that the mover of the Amendment will see fit to withdraw it, and certainly not press it to a Division.

Sir D. Glover: I have listened with care to what the Minister has said, but I am not happy about this. For security and control, any Government or organisation wants disclosure, and it wants lists and regulations. However, most of the thinking in this House about disclosure is based upon what goes on in the big cities, whereas the country is made up of some cities and a great many rural areas. In small communities in the rural

areas, secrecy and confidentiality of information is very "dodgy".
Unless the Minister gives us a clearer expression of the sort of person who is to have this information, he will ensure that a great many women who otherwise would have a perfectly legal abortion will still have an illegal one, out of fear—

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It is not up to the Minister to decide who will have the information. If the hon. Gentleman looks at subsection (2), he will see that the Bill lays down who will have the information. There is no question of just anyone in rural areas or big cities having the information.

Sir D. Glover: But the Minister has to make Regulations. That is why the Amendments appear on the Notice Paper. I hate to cross swords with the sponsor of the Bill, because he has far more knowledge of it than I have, but it seems to me that all these Amendments are out of order if he is right in what he says.
We are discussing who should have the information and on what basis he should have it. If the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has it, he is a long way removed from the person concerned, and that is all right. In the rural areas, on the other hand, the senior police officer is very much nearer to the rank and file.
What is even more worrying is that despite the division of opinion on how far the Bill should go, the general view is that we want a modernisation of the law on abortion which puts an end to back street abortion. However, nothing will make a woman go to a back-street abortionist more quickly than the fear that someone will find out that she has had an abortion. As a consequence, the Minister has an enormous responsibility in deciding who will get the information under his regulations.
It is all very well in a place like London, but in the sparsely populated areas one often finds that the chief police officer in a 60-mile radius is a constable who is known to everyone in the village in which he lives. If I lived in such an area, that constable would know my wife. If she became pregnant and wanted


an abortion because she did not want me to know, it would not be a good thing for the constable to have the information, when I drink with him in the local pub every Saturday night. In such circumstances, I am sure that my wife would go to a back-street abortionist.
4.15 a.m.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises that I am not being facetious about this. I think that in the rural areas there is a real danger which does not apply in Manchester, or Liverpool, or London, where all this information will be lodged in a vast bureaucratic machine. The chief constable and the chief medical officer will get the statistics, but in the rural areas the situation is totally different. The chief medical officer of health in a sparsely populated area is known personally to nearly all the people there, and certainly the police officers are known personally to all the people in a rural area. These officials are of very junior rank. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene and give us an assurance that he will take note of this, because if he does not, I think that what nearly everybody wants to achieve will be frustrated.
I do not think that the incidence of pregnancies as a percentage of the total population is greater in the cities than in the rural areas. It may be unfortunate, but in the rural areas even today quite a number of ladies find themselves pregnant and want an abortion. Therefore, do not think that people in the rural areas will be asked to deal with a small percentage of the pregnancies which ought to be terminated.
A woman in a rural area who, under a previous Amendment, would like to say that she had been raped, would not report the matter to the police, because if she did it would be all over the village within 24 hours. There is a real problem here. What is known as secrecy? What is known as confidential information? I hope that the Minister will take this very much into account.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend consider, together with the points which he has made, the fact that notification as such is important for purposes of research and a greater understanding of the problem? How does he envisage getting over the problem of having notification

clear and straight, while overcoming the difficulties to which he has referred?

Sir D. Glover: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I do not reckon to be an expert on the Bill—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: That is obvious.

Sir D. Glover: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I am dealing with a human problem.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: How does my hon. Friend expect to get notification in the rural areas anyway? Is he aware that in my constituency one of the doctors told me that in one parish there had been no illegitimate births for 30 years, and that there were 12 open mine shafts in that village?

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend has raised a very interesting point. I am not certain whether, if I pursued it, I should be in order. I have an awful feeling that if I came to my hon. Friend's constituency the mine shafts there would not be as empty as they are at present. Certainly some hon. Members opposite would be only too willing to get me down one.
But behind the facetiousness of what my hon. Friend says there is a very important point, namely, that in these rural areas and country districts there is a totally different problem from that which arises in large urban constituencies. If the House were sensible it would appreciate that this is a very different problem. I would prefer there to be no notification. Then there would be complete secrecy, and many women would be able to solve their difficulties.
I agree that in a modern society that would not be a very satisfactory suggestion. I accept that the Minister will want some statistics in order to be able to tell us what the incidence of abortion is, and so on. I realise that the problem we are faced with is to try to arrive at a balance between the two considerations. I ask the Minister to realise that when he makes the orders he is concerned not only with cities like London, Manchester and Liverpool, but with the sparsely populated parts of the country, where the problem of disclosure is much more serious.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have not uttered a single word in the proceedings on the Bill since they started. I am genuinely seeking information. As far as I can gather, notification will be sent to only one point in Scotland and one point in England. I cannot see what all the discussion is about. There is no question of any breach of confidentiality. The hon. Member has been rather insulting to civil servants—and I happen to be an ex-civil servant—in saying that as soon as civil servants and police sergeants are told the information is round the village within 24 hours.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Clause and the Amendments are of the highest importance. One of the major safeguards of the whole Bill is involved. The Clause would not be nearly so important if other Amendments had been accepted, notably that of the B.M.A. for the supervision of operations by a consultant or other doctor of equivalent status. Given that that suggestion has been excluded, the Clause and the Amendments are of paramount importance.
Hon. Members may recall that the power to make regulations under the Clause were originally permissive, but that it was thought so important that the Committee made it mandatory. I am concerned not with the Minister's powers to regulate the grounds for an abortion but with subsections (b) and (c). Under (b), a doctor may be required to give notice of an abortion and other informaton. That is dealt with by my hon. Friend's Amendment. Mine relates particularly to subsection (c), dealing with the prohibition of disclosure except as prescribed.
There is general agreement on the desirability of statistical information, and it would be helpful if we had the information which the Clause would make available. The main difference is on the question of to whom the disclosure should be made. I sympathise with the Amendment to leave out (c) altogether, and to provide that no information but statistical information should be provided without the order of a court of law. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) was attractive, based on the paramount need for confidentiality in the interests of doctor and patient.

This is the view expressed in the memorandum of the B.M.A. and the Royal College of Surgeons, whose views my hon. Friend has represented so honourably and indefatigably.
The other Amendment is narrower and would prohibit disclosure except for research and medical study. The simple objection was put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) whose useful counsel we have unfortunately not had tonight—that this information may be needed for criminal prosecution or police investigation. I appreciate that the medical profession may not care for that. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen)—who is a member of the profession as opposed to an honorary member, if I may so describe my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East—said in Committee that he would have considerable objections to such disclosure. But we must have wider considerations than the profession's views, important though they are.
There is conflict of interest here. On the one hand, there is the desirability of confidentiality for the medical profession and the patients; on the other hand, there is the desirability of effective enforcement of the criminal law. The conflict between these interests must somehow be resolved. One can only get a compromise on the issue. One cannot get full confidentiality or unlimited disclosure.
4.30 a.m.
The purpose of my Amendment No. 38 is to ensure that the discretion of the Minister is not exercised in such a way as to limit necessary disclosure. It would prevent his prohibition on the disclosure of information about abortions to certain named persons. The Minister asked me whether the purpose was to restrict him to limiting disclosure to them. That question has only to be raised to give its own answer. It could not possibly bear such an interpretation. It is narrowly worded. It says:
but such regulations shall not prohibit the disclosure of such notices or information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, a Procurator Fiscal, a chief constable or to a police superintendent".


In Committee I moved an Amendment to provide for the non-prohibition of disclosure of information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, a procurator-fiscal, or to a police officer. The Parliamentary Secretary made clear the multi-purpose functions that the information might serve. He accepted the principle. He said:
It is clear that the colliection by the Ministry of this information will provide material for useful research. However, that is not the only purpose of the notification requirement. Notification should act as a safeguard by deterring those who might otherwise be tempted to perform an illegal abortion. Although this would not be its purpose, notification would provide material if there were reason to suspect that illegal practices Here taking place.
While questions about the enforcement of the criminal law are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it would be indefensible for the Ministry of Health to make regulations which, if the eventuality arose, denied the responsible officers of the law access to information which could not be obtained in any other way and which was essential for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Although we do not think that this will arise often, we thought this should be on the record. I am sure that the Committee agrees that it would be wrong in principle to deny entirely access to this information for the proper purposes of the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 16th May, 1967; c. 505.]
That was an important and major statement of policy from the Ministry.

Sir D. Glover: Would my hon. Friend think that the Minister should disclose information which he thought would not be sufficient to provide evidence for a prosecution if, by so doing, he removed the good name of a woman living in a certain district?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have great sympathy with that point and with the cogent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). This is where the discretion of the Minister would come into it. He would have to weigh in the balance the advantages and disadvantages of disclosure. It might be a very painful decision to take, but I have no doubt that there might be cases in which, whatever the effect on an individual, it might be necessary in the public interest for such disclosure to be made.

Mr. Dance: In view of the indecision which we have heard recently from the B M.A., compared with the positive reso-

lutions from the Midlands, and particularly from Birmingham, does not my hon. Friend agree that the case for a Royal Commission is overwhelming?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is well outside the Amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I certainly agree, Mr. Irving. I have been consistently in favour of a Royal Commission and I have always regarded the Midlands as one of the most progressive parts of the country in the best sense of the term. Where the Midlands leads today, the rest of the world will follow tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Lancashire?"] And Lancashire is well in the van, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ireland. Scotland."] And Scotland, and Ireland, too—and, judging by comments around me, I must end by paying a brief tribute to the progressive policy of Cheshire and Croydon.
But, if I may turn from this brief excursion into the geography of the British Isles, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary that if he accepts the principle—as he rightly did—what possible objection can there be to writing the principle into the Bill? What we should be doing would be to write into the Bill in principle a practice which the Parliamentary Secretary, with all his authority, has said is the policy of his Ministry.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a further point to the Committee—that the Bill provides that it is an offence not to comply with the notification required. As he said, it would, however, be absurd to have a situation that the fact that no notification had been made was unable to be proved in criminal proceedings—I hope that that is the right number of negatives. One out? I am in a generous mood at this hour of the morning and I am prepared to give another negative.
I also had the support of the right hon. Lady the Minister of State—support which I always value and which I valued particularly on this point—when she said:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have to produce Regulations, and I suggest that to insert the words 'police officer' would be going too far because it might enable any police officer to demand the information. The Regulations, when issued, might refer to police superintendents, chief constables or people of that description. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for


Chelmsford will appreciate that while we agree with him in principle we would not like to be tied to the wording of his Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 16th March, 1967; c. 507.]
It is important that on this issue the Ministry of Health and the Home Office were in happy harmony. That has not always been the case during the discussions, as the Ministers responsible will recall, and where they are both concurring on the principle, there is some indication that the principle may be right. The right hon. Lady had some reservation about including the words "police officer" in the Bill. She thought that the provision would be too wide if any police officer could demand this confidential information.
I regret to see that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has hovered into the Chamber. But I shall continue my speech undeterred.
The Minister of State said that it would be too wide to allow an ordinary police officer to have that power. I found it rather odd that the Minister of State at the Home Office should make such a statement, when she has greater knowledge than perhaps anyone in the House, except the Home Secretary, of the high standards of integrity of the police. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out, the police are a disciplined force. They are used to obeying orders and conducting confidential investigations. Therefore, the fears which the right hon Lady expressed in general, and which have been particularised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, can be adequately met by my Amendment, in conjunction with the high standards of integrity known to prevail in the police force.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is one of the people referred to in my Amendment, and I have met the objection that the right hon. Lady raised to the possible low rank of a police officer by making the Amendment apply to a police superintendent only. I think that that would accord with what she said in amplication of her reservations about giving opportunities for collecting information to a police officer:
Let me qualify a little what I said about police officers … When I said the information should not be given to police officers,

I did not have in mind allowing police officers carte blanche to look at the notifications. That would be wrong. I am not saying that a superintendent or a higher police officer might not at some time give permission for a police officer in certain circumstances under the direction of a higher officer to see this information on a specific case. It was not our intention that it should only be on a court order that the police had access."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 16th March, 1967; c. 510–11.]
There again the right hon. Lady has conceded the substance of my case. She has conceded the whole of it in principle, just as the Parliamentary Secretary has. I think that both must therefore be opposed to the two Amendments that have also been discussed in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).
In this revised version of my Amendment, I have done my best to meet the objections that the right hon. Lady raised at that point. In view of the lack of general safeguards in the Bill, it is essential that we should have adequate safeguards under this Clause. The right hon. Lady has said that the intentions of her Department would not be to favour disclosure of information in the way that the Amendment provides against, and we have also had the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance on the Department's policy in this respect.
4.45 a.m.
If I may just say this to him, without, I hope, causing offence. We have had assurances from him on other matters on this Bill, and they have not been carried out when we have got to later stages of the Bill. We had support from him on supervision of abortion, and approval from him, which has not been adhered to when the matter has returned to the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Mr. K. Robinson: I simply said that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was quite untrue.

Sir D. Glover: Prove it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that in the context of this debate that is not a particularly offensive statement. I suppose it might be called a polite statement, on the whole. I think the Minister is mistaken in his assessment of the veracity of


my words. But I was not really referring to him, but to his colleague, who, as I understood it, supported the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in Committee, providing that abortion should be carried out under supervision of a consultant or other doctor of equivalent status.

Mr. Snow: I am not sure which Amendment the hon. Member is referring to, but on the one on Clause 1(1,b) I abstained.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that abstention was in itself significant. I was not in fact referring to that, but I was referring—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we get back to the Amendments?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. I have digressed, Mr. Speaker, I agree, and in response to your Ruling I return to my Amendment.
The point I was making in answer to the plea made at various times on different Amendments that it is not necessary to write this sort of prohibition into the Bill. My argument is that, on past experience, such prohibition is in fact necessary to be written into the Bill. It is not enough merely to rely on spoken assurances. For matters of such importance, in my view, it is necessary to make explicit provision in the Bill.
My final point is that this is not a positive Amendment. It is a negative Amendment. It merely restricts the power of the Minister to prohibit disclosure to certain people. It does not say he must make a disclosure to these people; it does not put a duty on him to make a disclosure to a police superintendent or others. It merely stops him from putting an actual prohibition in regulations made under the Bill. A further point is that, since these regula-

tions have been made mandatory and not permissive, and he has to make regulations, it is all the more important to get a safeguard of this character.

As we are agreed in principle, I hope that what really is not an important gap between us, a gap of practice rather than of principle, can be bridged, and since the Ministers concerned have had second thoughts on other matters I hope they will also have second and better thoughts on this one as well.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I only want to raise for a short time a query which I hope will be answered by the Minister as we have no Law Officer here. The promoter of the Bill referred to Clause 2(2) and said that the information furnished in pursuance of regulations under Clause 2(1) would be provided solely to the Ministry of Health, and the Department of Health in Scotland, respectively, and that that, in his view, simply meant they were the only people who would have access to this information. Under Clause 2(1,c) there is a scheme whereby regulations are made
… for prohibiting the disclosure, except to such persons or for such purposes as may be so prescribed, of notices given or information furnished pursuant to the Regulations.
Does that mean that that information will be given to certain of the Minister's officers? In view of the possibility of disclosure by certain people, the Minister is able to make regulations. If that is so, and if that provision is a safeguard, then that makes the Amendment really relevant.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 51.

Division No. 464.]
AYES
[4.50 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dell, Edmund


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Astor, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tte-upon-Tyne, w.)
Dobson, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Cant, R. B.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Barnett, Joel
Carlisle, Mark
Eadie, Alex


Bessell, Peter
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Binns, John
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ennals, David


Boyle, Rt. Hn, Sir Edward
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ensor, David




Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Forrester, John
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fowler, Gerry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacColl, James
Sinclair, Sir George


Freeson, Reginald
MacDermot, Niall
Skeffington, Arthur


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Snow, Julian


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Mikardo, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Swingler, Stephen


Henig, Stanley
Miscampbell, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Herbison, Rt. Hn, Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hornby, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
walden, Brian (Alf Saints)


Howie, W,
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Huckfield, L.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Reynolds, G. W.
Winnick, David


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)



Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ryan, John
Mr. Christopher Price and


Judd, Frank
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. John Hunt.


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert



NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Black, Sir Cyril
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Small, William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macdonald, A. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dempsey, James
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


English, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Younger, Hn. George


Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar



Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Harold Gurden and




Mr. James A. Dunn.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 51.

Division No. 465.]
AYES
[5.00 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamling, William


Astor, John
Dell, Edmund
Haseldine, Norman


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dewar, Donald
Henig, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dobson, Ray
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunnett, Jack
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hooley, Frank


Bessell, Peter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hornby, Richard


Binns, John
Eadlie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howie, W.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Ellis, John.
Huckfield, L.


Bradley, Tom
Ennals, David
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ensor, David
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Forrester, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Coe, Denis
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)




Luard, Evan
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lubbock, Eric
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


MacColl, James
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Swingler, Stephen


MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverns, Dick


Marquand, David
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'al)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Mayhew, Christopher
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mikardo, Ian
Ryan, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Millan, Bruce
Scott, Nicholas
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sharpies, Richard
Watkins, David (Consett)


Miscampbell, Norman
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Murray, Albert
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E,)
Winnick, David


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Palmer, Arthur
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skeffington, Arthur
Mr. Christopher Price and


Pardoe, John
Snow, Julian
Mr. John Hunt.


NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Small, William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macdonald, A. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


English, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus



Glover, Sr Douglas
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Harold Gurden and




Mr. James A. Dunn.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 2, line 26, to leave 3ut subsection (2).
I understand that at the same time we shall discuss Amendment No. 41, to leave out lines 28 and 29 and to insert:
'to the local medical officer of health of counties and county boroughs and of the equivalent local authorities in Scotland, and to the persons specified in section 1(1)(b) of the Act'.
Amendment No. 39 is concerned with that part of the Clause which specifies that information shall be given only to the
Chief Medical Officers of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health in Scotland respectively".
Amendment No. 41 is less wide in scope, leaving in the Bill the first part of this subsection, but inserting other words so that the information shall be disclosed to local medical officers of health in counties and county boroughs and equivalent authorities in Scotland.
The debate on these Amendments raises basically the same issues of principle which were raised in the previous

debate, but they are applied in a different way. Once again I stress the great importance of having adequate safeguards in this part of the Bill. The safeguards here provided are important, because other safeguards have been rejected, particularly that proposed by the British Medical Association that the operation should be carried out under the supervision of a consultant or other doctor of equivalent status.
In the last debate I argued about the necessity, or at least the opportunity, for disclosure to police officers. The Amendment is not concerned with direct disclosure to the police as such, but the police might well be indirectly involved. They would be indirectly involved whether the Amendment is accepted or not, because the Parliamentary Secretary envisages circumstances in which either of the authorities receiving the information, whether it be the Chief Medical Officer of Health, as is provided in the Clause as it stands, or the local medical officer of health of counties and county boroughs, as I propose in Amendment No. 41, would pass on the information


to the police where they had reason to believe that either the latter of the law was being flouted or that, although the letter of the law was being observed, the spirit of the law was being flouted.
I realise that the same conflict arises here between the general social needs of the country, on the one hand, and the need to protect the private status and the privacy of individuals, on the other. It is a question of the confidentiality required by members of the medical profession and the right of individual members to have their privacy respected. It is under the Amendment that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) arises. He was anxious about the situation for a woman in a small country village or rural area, who, if she knew information about her were to be given to a local—

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order. I think there must be something wrong here because in this Amendment it says in the last line:
… Scotland, and to the persons specified in section 1(1)(b) of this Act.
We have passed that Clause and we are on a different Clause altogether.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We are on Amendment No. 39.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It says 1(1)(b) and that must be wrong because we have long passed 1(1)(b).

Mr. Snow: I think it would be correct to say that the hon. Member is right, because the reference is to 1(1)(b) and that fell on Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Amendment is defective, it does not seem to me that any harm is done, because Amendment No. 41 is not called for decision, but only for discussion with Amendment No. 39, so that reference may be made to it. It does not seem to me that any reference will affect the position.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Amendment No. 41 refers to persons specified in 1(1)(b) and requires those persons to be notified. Have you observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the only persons who can be informed are foetuses

and therefore would you rule that no reference should be made to Amendment No. 41?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand the position, we are debating Amendment No. 39, in page 2, line 26 to omit subsection (2). Amendment No. 63 proposes to leave out certain words in line 27, and Amendment No. 41 proposes to leave out certain words in lines 28 and 29. Whether Amendment No. 41 is defective or not seems irrelevant to the Question the House has to decide, which is whether to leave out subsection (2).

Mrs. Knight: Further to that point of order. Since the suggestion enshrined in the first part of Amendment No. 41 is very important and is not covered by Amendment No. 39, and we should discuss the important point about the local medical officer of health, would it be your ruling that, since it is clearly a mistake in printing, that part of the Amendment should be discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think we had better confine ourselves to discussion of the Amendment before the House, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Maddan: Further to that point of order. We shall then be in an extraordinary position, because the whole Clause is about notifying people, and if we strike out notifying anybody we shall be notifying the waste paper basket. My hon. Friend has put down a good suggestion but it has not been possible for him to redraft it in the light of the proceedings and I should have thought that it would have been in order to leave out the last few words of the Amendment.

Mr. Maude: Further to the point of order. Whether or not the reference to "section 1(1)(b)" is a printing error, may I point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the drafting of Amendment No. 41 is defective in another respect, which may also be a printing error? The deletion of lines 28 and 29 would leave "to the" twice running, which could not possibly be right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It certainly seems to me that Amendment No. 41 has certain defects. That may well be why it


has not been selected. The fact is that it has not been selected. In this debate we are concerned exclusively with Amendment No. 39, to leave out the whole of subsection (2).

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to the point of order. The Chair has already ruled that we can discuss Amendment No. 41 together with Amendment No. 39. Is not that so, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that hon. Members can do is to refer to Amendment No. 41. If their references are to the fact that it is defective, perhaps the less that is said about it the better.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will resume the thread of what I am pleased to call my argument. We had a similar incident or an earlier occasion, rather at this hour of the morning, when the Home Secretary se. off a host of points of order. Fortunately, he has not done so this morning. I am glad to see him in his place.
I noted with distress the reference that the Home Secretary made to me in other proceedings, when he said that he was glad that I was not in my place. That was a little ungracious coming from the right hon. Gentleman. If I may pour some coals of fire on his head, I am always pleased to see him, just as a I am pleased to see his right hon. Friend the Minister of State. They make a unique combination of brains and beauty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which is which?"]—the Home Secretary providing the beauty, the Minister of State the brains. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Parliamentary Secretary the brawn."] I prefer not to advert to the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, but it is certainly unique.

Mr. Snow: I hope that the hon. Member will not take that line too far, otherwise one is reminded of the conclusion of the late George Bernard Shaw and Mrs. Patrick Campbell.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I always welcome a literary allusion, even at this hour of the morning.
I am sorry that certain defects have been revealed in Amendment No. 41. I seem to have fallen into the same trap a; the sponsor of the Bill. I can only say that one cannot escape infection from

the air one breathes. I wish to return to my argument, fully accepting your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there will be a Division, I understand, on Amendment No. 39 but that discussion of the substance of Amendment No. 41 will be allowed and that the defects, such as they are, and whoever is to blame, whether it be myself or anyone else, will not prove an obstacle because that Amendment will not be moved.
The clash of principle which we had in the previous debate occurs once again. There is the claim of confidentiality for the doctor and patient on the one hand, and the public interest in maintaining control of abortions allowed under the Bill on the other. Once again, it is not possible to do full justice to either of those interests. One has to compromise and reply on the discretion of the officers of health concerned. Just as one has to rely on the discretion of the Chief Officer of Health in the Bill as it now stands, one would have to reply on the discretion of the local medical officers of health were the wording in Amendment No. 41 to be substituted for that in the Clause.
We are all agreed on the value of the information which would be available. We are working in the dark on this Clause and on the Bill as a whole, but we are agreed that in future, should the Bill receive the Royal Assent, that situation would not repeat itself. At least we should be in a position to have adequate information on which future judgment could be based.
That is not disputed. The dispute concerns the person or persons to whom the information should be disclosed. There is no doubt that, if control is wanted under this part of the Bill, it would be much more effective if it came from the local medical officer of health, rather than from the Chief Medical Officer at the Ministry. One cannot pretend that the Chief Medical Officers at the Ministry and at the Department of Health in Scotland are not in a position to check up on local abuses which might take place. But a mass of material will be passing before them, and they are not likely to be in a position to be able to analyse it efficiently except in cases of the most glaring abuse. Will they be able to see abuses? Common sense must answer that this is not so.
This is extremely important. While it may reduce the number of illegal abortions, one of the dangers of the Bill is that, owing to its loose drafting in many places, it may enable unscrupulous practitioners to take advantage of the situation and bring themselves within the letter of law while acting entirely outside its spirit. I take it that the spirit of the sponsor of the Bill is to keep a fairly tight control over abortions, but that will not be achieved unless the wording of the Clause is improved radically.
5.30 a.m.
I am extremely sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is not able to be present this morning to give us the benefit of his views. We had that advantage in Committee. I should like to quote from what my right hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion with all the authority of his legal practice and his legal experience, and his status as a former Attorney-General. It has been a great disappointment to many of us that we have not had the Attorney-General available to advise us on the legal aspects of the Bill, hut it has been a great help to hon. Members on both sides that until today we have had the services of the former Attorney-General to advise on these matters. It is no good the right hon. Member for Leeds. West (Mr. C. Pannell) sighing and gnashing his teeth and glaring at me. It has been a great help to have that advice, and we have missed it in our debates today.
My right hon. and learned Friend said:
My own view has always been that real control would come only if notification were given to the local medical officer of health in a county or county borough because he would know the individuals."—
This was the point made against the Amendment previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—
He would not get the enormous volume of material coming to the Ministry of Health. He could quickly identify and spot people who rather surprisingly were doing far too many terminations of pregnancy. He would begin to ask questions. He would have a great deal of local knowledge. I appreciate that the disadvantages of notifying locally someone who is in touch with local conditions is that the interests of the patients become known. Women who are perfectly properly having a pregnancy

terminated—married women and particularly unmarried women—would not want the local county hall to have that information even though it was supposed to be confined to the principal medical officer.
This point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk.
My right hon. and learned Friend then asked a question which is very relevant to our discussion:
Does the Ministry of Health really envisage that there can be control if the whole of the information about any termination operation comes pouring into the chief medical officer? I agree that the Ministry will be able to analyse this information, but will it do so? Will it not be more interested in seeing how many different reasons there are, rather than studying the basis by which it can spot the doctor who is overstepping the mark? This is something on which all people interested in the Bill should have some information. It is of interest to see how far the promoter is right in saying that this amounts to control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 16th March, 1967, cc. 509–10.]
The point was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that the information would be carefully analysed, that the analytical facilities of the Ministry—whatever that meant—were adequate to deal with the point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it in order for the hon. Member to read the whole of the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it is quite correct to say that the hon. Member was reading the whole of it. In my view it would be most improper, on Report, to read the whole, or anything like the whole, of what happened in Committee. I was beginning to think that the hon. Member was exceeding the limit to which anybody ought to go on Report in referring to what took place in Committee. It has never been the practice on Report to go over everything said in Committee. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment, and to bear in mind that we are on Report.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I bow to your .Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must have caught your thought, because I had concluded the quotation when once again, too late, I was interrupted by an hon. Gentleman opposite, the effect of which was merely to prolong the discussion. I would not dream of quoting the whole of the Committee stage. I quoted that


passage at some length because the point was put so cogently by my right hon. and learned Friend. Because of his absence on Parliamentary duties abroad, he is unable to be here, but I felt that, corning with his authority, the words would have much greater influence than if they had been mine.
I have made my point. It is a question of providing effective control. We have to look around in the Bill wherever we can to find means of safeguarding not only the moral values but the health of the nation. We owe that duty to the country. If it has not been provided in other parts of the Bill it is the duty of those seeking to improve the Bill to see whether provisions can be inserted at a later stage to bring about that end.
I hope, therefore, that we shall hear from the sponsor of the Bill that he is prepared to consider the Amendment sympathetically. I hope, also, that we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as to the views of the Ministry on this question. His Ministry is involved more than any other. I am sure we shall hear from h m. It will be of great interest to all hon. Members. We must remember that even if the Amendments are defeated the Report stage has proved very useful in that it has enabled Ministers to put on record statements—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon Member must confine himself to the Amendment. Prolixity is out of order on Report.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will confine myself to saying that the Amendment will be useful even if it is defeated, in that it will enable the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to put on record an important statement of policy of his Ministry which will be of help to the medical profession and to many other people who are interested in the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: Amendment No. 39, in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has the great merit of being correctly drafted. Coming from the hon. Member for Chelmsford—who, in every newspaper in the country, whenever he disagrees with something accuses the sponsors of drafting the Bill badly—Amendment No. 41, which is not only technically incorrect but

appears to make notification possible to an abnormal foetus, is stretching his self-styled appointment as President of the Friends of the Foetus Society a little far. I hope that after that shameful performance we shall hear no more criticism of drafting from the hon. Member.
His point is a repetition of one fully considered in Committee. In his last speech he paid tribute to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) in discussing the need for confidentiality. The hon. Member's tribute to his hon. Friend's eloquence would have been taken more by the House as conveying sincerity had he been present when his hon. Friend made his speech. If he had been present he would have heard his hon. Friend stress a view which I can confirm that we have discussed with the medical profession—a view strongly held—that this notification should be solely to the Chief Medical Officers of Health in England and Scotland. Because we attached importance to their views, as we are told we should, we tabled the Amendment to ensure that no such information was given in the locality. It is not wanted by the local medical officers of health, let alone the general practitioners and specialists. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is therefore unacceptable to the profession.
Another reason for our opposition is that, if it was thought that the Bill would lead to information being bandied about in a locality, we would still encourage illegal abortions. I hope that the Paraliamentary Secretary will confirm these views and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I favour the second Amendment, because this matter is part of a tendency, noticeable in other health legislation, to remove important duties from local medical officers of health to the centre. There can be no exact parallel, but a close one is that, recently, before the hon. Gentleman became Parliamentary Secretary, we altered the regulations about notification in the same way in respect of another condition with social consequences—leprosy—and that was against the profession's wishes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can-nit discuss leprosy and these other matters on this Bill.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was merely drawing a parallel. This centralising tendency is part of a pattern over diseases with social consequences. Leprosy is the best example of such a disease, the arrangements for the notification of which the Ministry has in its own hands. The same tendency is in the Bill, and we must seriously consider whether it is a wise one.
5.45 a.m.
I reject the casting of doubt on the confidentiality of local medical officers of health. Like everyone else, I have high regard for the confidentiality of the medical profession as a whole. There must be occasional exceptions but, as a profession, it locks away the secrets of its patients with remarkable assiduity. I have great regard also for the procedures of local medical officers.
There could come a time—I am sure it will in the example I have quoted—when it might be the wish of a medical officer of health to be able to draw conclusions from the figures or to make known the figures for his area in his report. But they will be known only to the centre. We are dealing here with great social consequences. Certain social lessons may have to be drawn as we proceed.
The Parliamentary Secretary should be able to answer fully as to why, in these circumstances, he is assured that the matter should be kept at the centre and only at the centre. The point raised by my hon. Friend is of much more consequence than was realised.

Mr. Snow: The effect of the Amendment would be that there would be no stipulation as to whom notification and information required under Clause 2(1,b) should be sent. Clause 2(2) provides that
… information furnished in pursuance of regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall be notified solely to the Chief Medical Officers of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health in Scotland respectively.
Earlier, we discussed the use that should be made of information so supplied through the notifications. The House decided that, whereas it was not considered necessary to incorporate this into the Bill, nevertheless it would be part of the dis-

cretion of the Minister so to draft his regulations that access, for instance by the police down to a certain level, would be possible.
As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), it is that the choice lies between leaving the question of the disposal of information to the Regulations and having a statutory requirement that the information be held locally. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) purported to give the opinion of the medical profession about confidentiality and the non-supply of any information outside the office of the Minister of Health.
But my right hon. Friend was able somewhat to counter that assertion by saying that he had received a modification of the view of the profession to the extent that it accepted that, in certain circumstances, disclosure of information to, for instance, the police, would be necessary for enforcement of the law. I mention this because, whereas we abide by our view, for reasons well explained by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that this is a matter for regulation, we do not think that it would be desirable to have an Amendment such as this, which would leave the matter in the air.
I come now to the somewhat mutilated Amendment No. 41. The hon. Member argued that not to have the information locally would inhibit the proper operation of the Bill. We feel that if notification were made to the local medical officer of health it would still be necessary to secure collection of the information centrally. The likelihood of a breach of confidentiality would be far greater than it would be if the information were first collected centrally. We have been told that we must not cast aspersions on the discretion and good behaviour of medical officers of health. That has never been the intention. We feel that where there is locally a cause for disquiet, there is a central source to confirm or dispel doubt.
The medical profession have given the concession, mentioned by my hon. Friend, from their original view and they have moved a long way to meet the sponsor of the Bill and the Government.


The Amendment would not be acceptable to them and we, too, feel that it is unacceptable.

Mrs. Knight: We are in considerable difficulty, as I foresaw when we began to debate this part of the Bill, because it was and still is very difficult to follow. Amendment No. 39 seeks to delete subsection (2) which refers to information in pursuance of regulations under subsection (1). One of the difficulties in assessing what is the right thing to do is to discover how the regulations will be enforced and precisely how subsection (1) is intended to work. In Committee the right hon. Lady the Minister of State said that we were discussing giving the Minister of Health the power to make regulations, and added,
We should not attempt to write those Regulations this morning but should leave that for discussion when the regulations are before Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 16th March, 1967; c. 511.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing notification, not the regulations.

Mrs. Knight: The argument whether the Amendment should be made must rest on the validity of the argument for retaining or deleting the paragraph. We would regard it differently accordingly to how the regulations will be implemented. The right hon. Lady clearly envisaged that at this stage in the debate we should know what the regulations were—

Miss Bacon: The hon. Lady is quite mistaken. I said, "When the regulations are before Parliament." The regulations ate not before the House. This is the Report stage of the Bill.

Mrs. Knight: I still maintain that we have a right before we finish discussion of these Amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady keeps talking about "these Amendments". We are discussing only one particular very limited Amendment concerning notification. We cannot at this stage discuss what the regulations will possibly contain.

Mrs. Knight: With respect, I believe that they are regulations for notification, about which we are now speaking. I am

trying to confine myself to the two Amendments which we can now discuss. If I am not in order, I naturally accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I assure you that it is with sincerity that I put forward the arguments that we must have a clear knowledge of what we are discussing before we can come to a decision on whether or not—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but may we have your guidance on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Subsection (2) says:
The information furnished in pursuance of regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall be notified solely to the Chief Medical Officers …
Therefore, in discussing the notification one must surely be in order in discussing the regulations, because the notification procedure does not arise until the regulations have been made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot on this Amendment, in my opinion, go into detail about the regulations. All that we are concerned with is the question of notification.

Mr. Braine: Further to that point of order. Are we not in some difficulty? The House does not expect the Minister to detail what will be the regulations, for they will clearly be a matter of discussion and negotiation with the medical profession and other parties concerned. Nevertheless, is it not a normal courtesy to Parliament without which there is very little meaning in our discussions, for the Government to give at any rate some indication of the sort of things that will be in their regulations, the sort of area which the regulations will cover? As far as I am aware, we have not been given any detail, and to this extent I would hope that my hon. Friend would be permitted to seek clarification on the point, for otherwise the House is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into elaborate points of order. In my opinion the House is in no difficulty at all. The Amendment introduces the perfectly simple question of whether notification should be solely to the Chief Medical Officer of Health or extended to local medical officers. It is quite unnecessary to speculate on what would be contained in the regulations.

Mrs. Knight: I can imagine that one would be in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have told the hon. Lady what will not be in order.

Mrs. Knight: I was going on to speak of what I intended to touch on. Subsection (2), which Amendment No. 39 seeks to delete, reads:
The information furnished in pursuance of regulations. …
If I knew clearly what those Regulations were I should find it much easier to decide how to vote on the Amendment. It is very difficult to come to a sensible decision when one does not know what one is talking about specifically on the issue. One is almost again on the prongs of Morton's fork, to which one of my hon. Friends referred earlier. One is desperately anxious to preserve the woman's secrecy about the operation, but one also recognises the great need for a sensible correlation of facts on abortion, for many cogent reasons.
6.0 a.m.
In the Amendments it is sought to weigh up how the information can be of best value to all, and at the same time to preserve the secrecy of the whole series of informational points.
I should like very briefly to touch on Amendment No. 41 because I also, like my right hon. Friend, feel very strongly that the information which should be, rightly, dispersed to the local medical officers of health, is at that point at its most valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred to remarks made in Committee, and not enough notice has been taken of the relevance of those to these two Amendments. It was asked, clearly, there, is the information—and I think this is a very valid point, and I am sure it is one which the Parliamentary Secretary has thought a great deal about—going to be fed to two vast organisations and possibly correlated there, or is it possibly to be put through a computer there? I do not know. Nobody knows. Or else, is it to be fed to the area where knowledge of the locality is greatest?
I, while most anxious, as I have said all along, to preserve the secrecy of this information, feel very strongly about this. I was for 10 years a member of a local health authority, working with the

medical officer of health. There is a real and important claim that at that place the local medical officer of health would have special ability to deal with these facts, and it is very important to suggest that these facts should be passed to him. Even taking into account the difficulty that the information might get out—and it is right to recognise that possibility—I think the medical officer of health has a very important job to do in this connection—

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Lady wants to maintain secrecy. I completely agree with her. I also subscribe to the point of view expressed in relation to the medical officer of health normally carrying out his duties in an exemplary manner. But once information of this sort is sent to the local authorities, unless it is put under lock and key it can escape, and then the medical officers of health would be held responsible. I am sure the hon. Lady does not want that to happen, any more than I do. Under the regulations as they are in draft form now it would be possible for that to happen. If we go any further, the possibilities of that happening are extended further.

Mrs. Knight: I thought I made it very clear that this was my dilemma on this issue. It is a very grave dilemma, and one which makes it very difficult to deduce which is the right way to vote on the Amendment. I am convinced of the need to obtain every bit of benefit which can be obtained from these facts. It is, to my mind, a question of how best we can obtain the information we need from the facts, and, at the same time, preserve secrecy. This is the point. I would assure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) that he is not altogether just when he suggests that information passed to local health officers is of necessity no longer secret, because there are many, many pieces of information with which medical officers of health and their staffs have to deal every day and which are kept secret.

Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend seized of the point, that it is not necessarily the case that the more people there are who get this information the more there will be breaches of confidentiality, but that women who need help and ought to be going to the doctor may be discouraged from doing so because they feel that


people in their own locality will be privy to this information? It is on this point that the medical profession is most adamant, that confidentiality shall be preserved to the utmost degree.

Mrs. Knight: Yes, I would accept this, and it underlines the difficulties I see bristling over these two Amendments. We must decide how best to use this information because, if properly read and sensibly collated, it could be of great benefit to women.
How are we to keep this information confidential? One way would be for the local medical officers not to have the names and addresses of the women concerned. They could have all the other relevant information and, even without the personal details, adequate statistics could be kept. As long as the medical officers know how many children the woman has, how many months elapse before she seeks another abortion, and so on, proper statistics can be maintained and an analysis made. Local medical officers have close experience of their localities. I am anxious to harness that experience to the other information that the statistics about abortions would give.
I am in a dilemma because Amendment No. 39 on its own does not make sense. It will have to be allied with some other provision if it is to mean anything.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the helpful intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, he pointed out that, with certain safeguards, this information could be made available to medical officers of health? Might not that destroy the confidentiality aspect to which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred?

Mrs. Knight: The trouble is that the whole Clause is too vague and ambiguous. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind the remarks trade in this debate. We must use these statistics to the best advantage.

Mr. Maddan: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made an important point when she said that the names and addresses of the women on whom this operation is performed need not be disclosed when this information is passed

on. I trust that the House will remember, however, that this provision is about the activities of doctors, and not patients. And since we are concerned with policing the activities of doctors rather than patients, I do not know why there is such fear about giving this information to the local medical officers.
If this policing function is to be carried out, the medical officers are the people to have this information. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the information would have to go to Whitehall to be nationally analysed. There is no need for names and addresses to be mentioned. Already medical officers report the number of cases of, say, measles. They merely say, "We had 10 cases." They do not say, "Little Bill Jones of Acacia Avenue was one of the 10 cases". Exactly the same thing would happen in this case. Therefore, why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it causes any difficulty at all, I do not know. The more I have listened to the debate the more it has seemed to me that very little thought has been given to the purpose of notification, never mind the method.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will press the Amendment to a Division because, if we leave it in, then, in another place, pressed with other business, the matter may go through, but if we leave it out for the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary the Clause will be a nonsense and another place will have to attend to it. It certainly needs far greater attention than it has so far received.
I shall be interested to hear what other hon. Members have to say, and I shall be interested to see whether the sponsors of the Bill or the Parliamentary Secretary refute one word of what I say, the principal point being that the intention is to police the doctors, not the patients, so there is no fear of lack of security at local level. Medical officers of health are in the habit of supplying information in statistical form to the Minister of Health. As this topic is the kernel of the Clause, it is most important that we should hear more about it.

Mr. Dunn: We have dealt with these Amendments at some length, and we have many important items still to discuss. Various points have been made by those


who have some difficulty in understanding what the Bill as drafted will eventually do, and we have also examined in critical detail the effect of the Amendments. All hon. Members ought now to be satisfied that the intention of the Ministry is to bring in regulations at an early date that will cover the majority of the points that have been made, and those regulations will themselves be debatable.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) quite rightly said that the members of the medical profession were rather strong in their representations in regard to confidentiality. If that is to be respected, and if the members of the medical profession and their requests are to be respected, it would be wrong for us now to depart from this point. As I say, we have major issues yet to be debated, and the hour is getting rather late. I therefore hope that we can resolve the matter quickly by the mover of the Amendment seeking leave to withdraw it.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not want to detain the House for long on this Amendment, but I must take a contrary view from that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). In this matter the views of the medical profession are not so important as the national interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary went some way to prognosticating what the Minister would be likely to do when he made the Regulation, but that is not quite good

enough. This is the only means the Government have of policing the medical profession and there are in that profession, as in others, people who need to be policed. Otherwise the Measure would fall into disrepute. One thing which the vast majority of us wish to prevent is an increase in abortion on demand. However badly it is framed, that is the main tenor of the argument for the Amendment.

Neither the sponsor nor the medical profession knows how many cases would be dealt with in a year, should this Bill become law. If we take the Swedish figures and multiply them in ratio to the population, we get very big figures. I do not think that these matters can be successfully policed from a central department ignorant of local problems. To believe that to be possible is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. I am surprised that the hard-headed Scotsman, the sponsor. should take this line.

Many of my hon. Friends, quite rightly, have fears and doubts about the very grave problem of confidentiality. We are dealing with a Bill on which many have doubts even if they do not oppose it. Unless the Amendment is accepted, there will be no means of policing those in the medical profession who are not prepared to abide by their Hippocratic Oath.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 47.

Division No. 466.]
AYES
[6.18 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Haseldine, Norman


Archer, Peter
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Edmund
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Astor, John
Dewar, Donald
Hornby, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dobson, Ray
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunnett, Jack
Howie, W.


Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Huckfield, L.


Bessell, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, s.)


Binns, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Ennals, David
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras,S.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Ensor, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fowler, Gerry
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Luard, Evan


Carlisle, Mark
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lubbock, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Coe, Denis
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacColl, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamling, William
MacDermot, Niall




Marquand, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts Gwilym (Bedfordshire, 8.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mayhew, Christopher
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Swingler, Stephen


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Varley, Eric G.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ryan, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Scott, Nicholas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Murray, Albert
Sharples, Richard
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Norwood, Christopher
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Winnick, David


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Pardoe, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Wyatt, Woodrow


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Skeffington, Arthur



Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reynolds, G. W.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Christopher Price and




Mr. John Hunt.


NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, W. H. K.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Harold Gordon and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Question put accordingly, That the words prosed to be left out, to the end of line 26, stand part of the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 42.

Division No. 467.]
AYES
[6.27 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maude, Angus


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher


Astor, John
Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bessell, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Binns, John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Murray, Albert


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Norwood, Christopher


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Braine, Bernard
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pardoe, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hornby, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howie, w.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Huckfield, L.
Reynolds, G. W.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Carlisle, Mark
Jackson, Colin (B'h'Se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n &amp; St. p'cras, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth St. p'c'as)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ryan, John


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Scott, Nicholas


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sharples, Richard


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadle, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Sinclair, Sir George


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Skeffington, Arthur


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Ensor, David
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie




Steel, David (Roxburgh)
vickers, Dame Joan
Winnick, David


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Swingler, Stephen
walden, Brian (Ail Saints)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, David (Consett)



Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. John Hunt and




Mr. Christopher Price.


NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Percival, Ian


Baker, w. H. K.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ttord &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Harold Gurden and




Mr. James A. Dunn.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 2, line 27, to leave out 'under' and to insert:
'made by virtue of paragraph (b) of'.
This is a clarifying Amendment, which gives greater precision to Clause 2(2). That subsection deals with what is to happen to information furnished in pursuance of regulations made under the Clause. Since the relevant regulation-making power is contained in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), it is appropriate that subsection (2) should refer specifically to that paragraph rather than to subsection (1) in general.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 2, line 28, to leave out 'Department of Health in Scotland' and to insert:
'Scottish Home and Health Department'.
The purpose of the Amendment is purely to bring up to date the title of the Department of Health for Scotland, which is now the Scottish Home and Health Department.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In view of the strange failure to have brought the name up to date, would it be in order, as Amendment No. 72 has not been selected, to use Amendment No. 64 as a means of discussing whether the Bill should apply to Scotland, where it is not wanted and is not needed? To have left the Bill as it was would have made nonsense of

it concerning application to Scotland. Would you allow us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this Amendment, to debate whether the Bill should apply to Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That would not be possible. This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO VISITING FORCES ETC.)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 37, to leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, it is proposed that we discuss also the following Amendments: No. 67: in page 3, line 1, leave out
'a registered medical practitioner or';

Amendment No. 68: in line 3, after 'body', insert 'and';

Amendment No. 69: in line 6, after 'have', insert 'no'; and

Amendment No. 70: in line 6, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 11.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We now come to a rather odd Clause. Amendment No. 66 would leave out the whole Clause. Most of the other Amendments which we are taking with it are of a minor nature. This is a curious Clause because to a great many hon. Members it must be totally incomprehensible.
The Clause allows a woman who has what is referred to in the Clause as "a relevant association" with the forces in


question to take advantage of the law of this country, which might not otherwise apply to her. It is a very small point, but nearly half the Bill is taken up by this abstruse provision containing references to Part I of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, and so on.
There is, for example, no definition of what constitutes a "relevant association". It provides that she will be able to take advantage of the law if she has a relevant association, or,
in the case of such a headquarters as aforesaid, she was a member of the headquarters or a dependant within the meaning of the Schedule aforesaid of such a member".
I do not know what that means, and we have had little enlightenment from anyone on it.
This Amendment appeared suddenly on the Notice Paper in Committee. Apparently no one had thought of it before, and the whole Clause was inserted as an Amendment. It had never been discussed by the House. It came into the Bill in Committee by a side wind, and we are entitled to ask from where that wind was blowing, because I cannot believe that the sponsor of the Bill can have been concerned particularly with the women having relevant associations with visiting forces. I can only assume that the Home Office was responsible for parking this immense Clause in the middle of the Bill.
The right hon. Lady the Minister of State, who is sitting in yet again—

Miss Bacon: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the rather jocular remark which he made a little time ago?

Sir D. Glover: The right hon. Lady is getting better looking every minute.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I recall the remark. I am glad that the right hon. Lady accepted it in the spirit in which it was offered and has not taken umbrage. No personal reflection on her appearance was intended, or could be remotely justified.

Sir D. Glover: I have rarely seen the right hon. Lady looking so attractive.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that remark should be addressed to the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Braine: Despite the extraordinary patience that the right hon. Lady has

shown and the help that she has given, to which everyone pays tribute, is it not astonishing that, in a life and death matter of this kind, we have not had the advantage of advice from a Law Officer of the Crown? He is conspicuous by his absence. Is it not quite disgraceful?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is extraordinary, though I am not astonished. Nothing connected with the Bill astonishes me any longer. My faculty for surprise was exhausted long ago.
6.45 a.m.
In Committee upstairs we did not hear a word on this subject from the right hon. Lady, and the debate was of the shortest possible character. It was disposed of in about two minutes. The sponsor of the Bill, who, unhappily, is not here at the moment, gave a brief résumé of the Clause, but no really adequate explanation has ever been given to anyone about why it is in the Bill, whether it is necessary, and what the effect of it will be.
I should not have thought that there was one hon. Member who knows what a relative association is. Does the right hon. Lady, who is a principal sponsor of the Bill, know what it means? I will gladly give way if she can tell me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be offensive."] This is a very real and important point, and I am not being offensive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it would assist progress if the hon. Member would make his case.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is an essential part of my case. We have here a Clause which was put into the Bill in Committee upstairs, without discussion by the House, and the sponsors do not know why it is there, or what it means. I hope that when the right hon. Lady replies to the debate she will give us a full explanation of who drafted the Clause, why it was drafted, and what its effect is likely to be.
That really is the only point that I wish to make at this stage. It is the only point that I can make, because we have heard nothing about the Clause. I hope that after we have heard the right hon. Lady, and other hon. Members who may wish to speak, I shall be enabled to exercise briefly my right to reply.

Miss Bacon: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there was only a short debate on this Clause in Committee. In fact, it occupied only three columns of HANSARD, but it is rather strange that this should be so, because the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was present on that occasion. He did not ask any questions, or make any comments, or ask for the information for which he has now asked.
The sponsor of the Bill explained the purpose of the Clause fairly fully. The reasons for clarifying under the Bill position of visiting forces and international headquarters were given by the sponsor of the Bill. As she explained, it is general policy that visiting forces and members of international headquarters serving in this country should, in general, be in the same position under our law as our own forces, and the Clause is necessary in order to conform with that general policy.
Without the Clause, a doctor from a visiting force would be liable to prosecution in the criminal courts of this country if he carried out an operation which, if performed in parallel circumstances by one of our own doctors, would not be an offence. This would not be just. The Clause deals only with the position of members of visiting forces and international headquarters under the law of Great Britain. It does not affect the position—as I shall explain when we deal with the hon. Member's next Amendment—of such a person under the laws of their own countries.
The hon. Member made great play about what is meant by anybody having a relevant association with a body. It means that a pregnant woman at the time of treatment, who was also a member of a visiting force or a civilian of that force, or a dependant—that is, the wife of such a person or other person wholly or mainly maintained by a member of a visiting force or headquarters, or in his custody, charge or care. All members of visiting forces and headquarters would be covered by this Clause.
I assure the hon. Member that there is nothing special about this. It is something which, in all Bills, has to be done to cover the visiting forces and headquarters—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Who are the visiting forces? What countries do they come from?

Miss Bacon: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the majority of visiting forces in this country are from the United States of America. I can appreciate why she has suddenly decided to take such an interest in our proceedings. [Interruption.]

Sir D. Glover: When the voices backwards and forwards and sideways have stopped, I will say what I want to say. I am not satisfied with what the right hon. Lady has said. I do not make any complaint about this provision having been inserted in the Bill in Committee. It is a Private Member's Bill, and I understand that the sponsor at the time of the Second Reading debate did not realise that there were certain ramifications which had to be taken care of, one of which was the question of visiting forces.
What does "relevant association" mean? I do not think that it is a minor point. A soldier in the British Army who is living with, or having a semi-permanent association with, a woman can put down that woman as his dependant, and she then draws all the relevant allowances as though she was his wife. This procedure was established during the war and as far as I know it still operates in the British Army.
I see a great danger here. Admittedly, the provision applies principally to the United States forces. Let us suppose that a United States unit is in a Catholic part of Germany, where the local people are not in favour of abortion, or in Italy, which is a strong Roman Catholic country, where the people are not only not in favour of abortion but are very strongly against it. There is a danger of an American Serviceman who has an illicit association with a woman in the country concerned paying the cost of bringing that lady to this country in order to have an abortion under the auspices of the Bill when she would not be able to do so in her own country.

Mr. Braine: Or in the United States.

Sir D. Glover: Or in the United States. I cannot think that it would do our international relations any good if the


Italians or the Germans felt that we were circumventing their law—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The observation that the hon. Member is making would be more appropriate on Amendment No. 43.

Sir D. Glover: It is the question of a relevant association.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a question of what would be the position in respect of the laws of different countries, and that question arises on Amendment No. 43.

Sir D. Glover: It probably arises on Amendment No. 43, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, with respect, we are debating a relevant association with the visiting forces. This is relevant association—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing what might happen under the laws of different countries. This is relevant not to this Amendment, but to No. 43.

Sir D. Glover: I am concerned with laws which would enable people to get an abortion here which they could not get in their own country—

Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We are not talking of National Health Service hospitals, but of those run and paid for by the visiting forces. Thus, no one would be brought over for an abortion in a National Health Service hospital.

Sir D. Glover: I never thought so, but if a soldier returned from abroad with someone, that would be relevant—

Dr. Winstanley: Without the Clause, a visitor would still be entitled to a medical termination. We are discussing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate what would happen without the Clause, but only the effects with it.

Sir D. Glover: That appears to make most of Clause 3 irrelevant.

Dr. Winstanley: Clause 3 applies to what might happen in hospitals under the visiting forces and not N.H.S. hospitals.

Sir D. Glover: Few abortions would take place in National Health Service hospitals anyway, because of the pressure on them. We are debating whether

abortion is legal in a particular part of the world. We are opening a door which could cause us diplomatic embarrassment. It is unnecessary and should not be done.

Mr. Maude: I was bewildered by the right hon. Lady saying that, without the Clause, a visiting forces doctor could be guilty of an offence, but that a British doctor would not. The reason cannot be that he was doing the operation in the wrong place, because the Minister would be able to specify other places than National Health Service hospitals, so it must be because he was not a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of the Bill. Otherwise, I cannot see how an offence could possibly arise if the operation were carried out in good faith by a visiting forces doctor, whether the Clause is in the Bill or not.

7.0 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Perhaps the right hon. Lady can give some help, since the Law Officers are not present, although this is a legal point. Perhaps she can take advice from her advisers. As I understand, under our criminal law anyone who comes here, whether he happens to be in the American or any other forces, and commits a murder, is liable just as a British subject is liable. There are, however, certain acts which are dealt with outside our jurisdiction—for example visiting forces have their own courts and try their own criminal cases.
In this case, there seems no reason for such a course because, if the doctor is acting as an ordinary practitioner, there seems no reason for taking an unlawful abortion that he may commit out of our jurisdiction. There is no valid reason for the Clause. If it is not in the Bill, exactly the same position will apply. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Lady, but I simply do not see her case.

Sir Myer Galpern: Two points trouble me on this Clause. First, to which central medical officer or body will a visiting forces doctor have to make his notification? Will he be obliged to send it to the central medical officer of health or will he be in a special position in which he need make no such notification? Will he be required to send notification to the native country of the national involved?


If visiting forces doctors were exempt, any statistics we were able to obtain over the years would be grossly inadequate.
Secondly, the B.M.A. has expressed the hope for an Amendment ensuring that medical practitioners involved have the necessary qualifications. Would it not be better if no permission to carry out these operations were given to medical officers of military hospitals in this country and if all individuals seeking an abortion had to go to civilian registered medical practitioners? Otherwise, how will any prosecution institute action against a military medical officer who has not conformed to the conditions laid down in the Bill?
Who will supervise and ascertain the facts? Why should he be exempt from conforming strictly—and, in spite of our opposition to the Bill, we recognise that there are strict, narrow confines within which a medical officer may decide that a pregnant woman should be aborted. I fail to see how we shall supervise medical officers in military hospitals to see that they conform to the same conditions as those to which our medical officers will conform. The solution would be not to allow medical officers in a military hospital to carry out abortions and that the matter should be referred to two medical practitioners normally practising in this country.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am anxious that we should make as rapid progress as possible. I put forward the Amendment as a probing Amendment in order to facilitate a statement, I hoped, from a Law Officer. In fact, we have had it from the Minister of State, Home Office, and we are grateful to her, although she has not totally satisfied us. She has spoken with her usual lucidity, but she is not a lawyer, and this is essentially a Clause which needs a legal statement. But the substance of the debate should take place on the following Amendment, and, therefore, to facilitate progress, I propose in due course to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. It has served its purpose.
Before doing so, I would point out to the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is not in his place, that according to various newspapers he

has accused me of organising a filibuster during our discussions. If the opponents of the Bill were trying to organise a filibuster, this would be an ideal opportunity for them to do so, because this is a long and complicated Clause occupying almost half of the Bill and we could go on discussing it for hours. That will be an answer to the right hon. Gentleman who, in this respect, has abandoned his normal judicial calm and has become so partisan. Having said that, I hope that I may have the leave of the House to withdraw—

Mr. John M. Temple: Before he sits down, my hon. Friend should recall that there has been an interesting interrogatory speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). I feel that before my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment the Minister of State should reply to her hon. Friend, who asked some pertinent questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is asking leave to withdraw it. I appreciate that questions have been asked. Some of the matters which are relevant can more appropriately be raised on subsequent Amendments. It seemed to me that that might meet the convenience of the House. I appreciate that there were questions to the Minister of State which may need reply, but they could be raised on subsequent Amendments.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. It is within the recollection of the House that early in his speech my hon. Friend said that later he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I do not think that he wishes to withdraw it at the moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) cannot make three speeches on his Amendment. Am I right that he is asking to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was my intention, but it is obviously a matter on which I must take the sense of the House. I thought that the House would wish to proceed to another Amendment. It is clear that there are a number of hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member asking for leave to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Not in these circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hat in our last debate the hon. Member or Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) challenged Mr. Speaker that you had entered into a commitment with him that he could reply. In effect, if he is replying to the Amendment he replies now. 'There was no sense in his being called at all unless he was at this stage asking leave to withdraw his Amendment. Are we to have a third speech on this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get this right. I called the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) because I understood from him that he wished to withdraw the Amendment, and he said so. I understand that he has now said that he does not want to withdraw. The hon. Member must make up his mind. He was called because he said that he wanted to withdraw the Amendment. I must ask him again, does he wish to withdraw the Amendment as he said or does he not?

Mr. Temple: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Points of order cannot he raised while I am on my feet.

Mr. Temple: Mr. Temple rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep his seat. I am speaking. Nobody else can speak while I am speaking. I must ask the hon. Member for Chelmsford to be frank with the House.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Mr. Grant-Ferris rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must remain seated while I am addressing the House. The hon. Member fir Chelmsford was called because he told me that he wished to withdraw his Amendment. I must now ask him to be frank with the House and say whether he wishes to withdraw his Amendment or rot.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order—

Mr. Temple: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No point of order arises until we have dealt with this one.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I explain my position? It was my intention—

Mr. Temple: Will my hon. Friend permit me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must allow this matter to be dealt with first.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It was my intention to withdraw the Amendment, because I wished to facilitate progress. But if hon. Members wish to speak and feel strongly on the matter I feel that I can hardly put myself in the position of closuring them. This puts me in an impossible position. I thought that there was a general consensus on this. As it does not seem to exist, I do not wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sharples.

Mr. Temple: Before my hon. Friend sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called Mr. Sharples.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if another hon. Member rises after an hon. Member has sought to withdraw his Amendment the matter must proceed to a Division.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Temple: On a point of order. May I explain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I was on my feet a few moments ago? It was because my hon. Friend gave way in his speech and I asked him a question before he sat down. He has not answered it, although he has been on his feet and has had an opportunity to do so. I should be grateful if he could reply to my point.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order. Would it not save a great deal of time and trouble if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) asked leave to withdraw and the House refused it? Then we could get on with the Bill.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Sharples: I hope that the right hon. Lady will seek the leave of the House to reply again. I think that we shall make progress in this way.
Hon. Members on both sides have raised most important issues. As I see it, Clause 3 is only necessary because of the status of the medical practitioner who is a member of one of the visiting forces. I do not myself see the relevance of the position of the woman at all. Whether she is a member of the visiting forces or not it would seem to me she would be treated in exactly the same way as any other woman patient; and equally, the civilian British woman employed by one of the visiting forces either could have the operation in a National Health Service hospital or could have the operation in a hospital provided by the visiting forces. It does not seem to me that the position of the woman herself is relevant at all.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will reply to what I thought was the very important point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). It would seem to me that, apart from the status of the doctor who is a member of the visiting forces, the Clause is entirely irrelevant, and I would have thought it quite possible for the Home Secretary to reconsider the whole of this question, and to have it re-examined when the Bill is considered in another place, because I do not really see that it is necessary at all. The right hon. Lady said that this was common form, that a Clause of this kind was included in other Bills—Acts of Parliament. I wonder whether she would tell us in what Acts of Parliament there are Sections of the kind of this Clause. I must say that I am very doubtful whether any such Section has ever been included in an Act. I hope that the right hon. Lady may reply to this.

Miss Bacon: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer one or two of the questions which have been put to me. I would have done so sooner had it not been for the procedural difficulties in which we were.
First of all, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) asked about notification. Hon. Members will observe that in Clause 3(1) there are the words
and as if section 2 were omitted.
They mean that there would be no notification for the operations performed in the Service hospitals.
On the general question as to why we need this in, the visiting forces doctor is outside the Bill, because he is not a registered medical practitioner in this country. Therefore, we have to make special provision for the operation to be performed in Service hospitals. Otherwise the operation there would be illegal, when performed in this country, and we would, as I said when I spoke previously, have the position that a doctor of a visiting forces hospital would be performing an operation which it would be illegal for him to perform, but which it would be legal for a registered medical practitioner in this country to perform. We think it totally unfair to leave the visiting forces hospitals in that way.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: May I ask a question about visiting doctors? I cannot quite understand the second part of Clause 3(1), because it does not seem to refer to two doctors of a visiting force. Do there have to be two doctors of a visiting force, or is one sufficient, although under our domestic law, in Clause 1, there have to be two doctors?

Miss Bacon: No. The Bill brings the visiting forces into exactly the same position in law as our own doctors will be in.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: There must be two?

Miss Bacon: There would have to be two to give an opinion. This brings them into the same position with regard to this Bill as our own doctors will be in.

Sir M. Galpern: The same criteria?

Miss Bacon: Just a moment. A lot of questions which hon. Members who are raising them could have put in Committee, have been thrown at me.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I was not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we did not have a chance to discuss this matter in detail in Committee because the discussion was closured?

Miss Bacon: My hon. Friend was one of the few who spoke on this topic in Committee. I do not think that the Closure was adopted on a similar Amendment in Committee. My recollection


is that the whole thing was discussed and agreed within a matter of minutes.
The Clause is necessary and we were asked to insert it by the Ministry of Defence so that doctors in Service hospitals in this country are not liable to be prosecuted when performing operations in their hospitals when those operations are legal in civil hospitals.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), we must scrutinise every Bill to see whether a provision of this kind is necessary. Perhaps I am going back on something I said earlier, but only in a Bill in which something exactly similar applies is it necessary to include this type of provision; but we must examine every Bill to ensure that visiting doctors are in exactly the same position, regarding the law, as doctors generally.

Sir D. Glover: Would the right hon. Lady comment on the phrase "relevant association?"

Miss Bacon: I explained that in my original remarks.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 36, at the end to insert:
(3) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the termination of a pregnancy by such a person as is mentioned in subsection 1(c) of this section in circumstances in which such a termination would be the offence against the relevant law of the country of the body of which such a person is a member or with which the pregnant woman has a relevant association.
As has been explained, the Clause is covered by the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, and the International Headquarters and Defence Organisation Act, 1964, followed by various Statutory Instruments. The Visiting Forces Act lays down, carefully and exactly, the various things that may happen when visiting forces come to this country.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) asked who these visiting forces were. I have with me a list of the countries concerned. They are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malayan Federation, Cyprus, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad, and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya Malawi, Zambia, Malta, The

Gambia, Guyana, Botswana, Lesotho, Singapore and Barbados. The Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order, 1965, in addition, makes provision for the United States, France, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Portugal, Italy and the Federal German Republic.
The relevant point to consider in connection with this Amendment is that it affects a great number of countries. We not only have to bear in mind—

Mr. Temple: Can my hon. Friend tell us the position of the United Nations force?

Mr. Baker: The position there is covered quite specifically in the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act, 1964, where headquarters is specifically designated as having an allied quantum.
We also have to bear in mind that besides the visiting forces there are under the Act various other people whom we must consider. They are termed the "civilian components." The civilian components may be either male or female. In either case, a civilian component may have a wife or a husband. From there on, things get extremely complicated.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I am very interested in the list of visiting forces. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me whether all these visiting forces have hospitals in this country controlled by them?

Mr. Baker: With great respect, I think that that point is immaterial.

Mr. Robinson: With great respect, that is the condition under which the Clause operates.

Mr. Baker: We are talking about the operation of the Clause, and not where it is operative.
As I was saying, this provision may apply to females of the civilian component or to the wives of the male members of the civilian component. It may also apply to the wives or dependants in the terms of the Visiting Forces Act—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when a human being becomes a component?

Mr. Baker: I must decline to answer that question. I cannot answer it.
We may, therefore, have to consider three categories of female—the wives of the civilian component of a visiting force, the females of the civilian component, and the actual Service women serving with the visiting force.
It is also relevant to point out that this Amendment could, in terms of the Visiting Forces Act, apply to the female dependants, relatives or members of the staff of the military attachés in the embassies of the various countries I have mentioned. It is also relevant to point out, in view of what the sponsor of the Bill said in Committee, that there are a great many forces other than those of the United States concerned in this state of affairs. It is equally relevant to point out that if the Bill is enacted it will be as effective in wartime as in peacetime. Therefore, the problem we have to solve or take care of is by no means negligible.
7.30 a.m.
In effect, Clause 3 is generally to allow abortion if a woman has relevant association. "Relevant association" has been mentioned several times. It is clearly defined in Section 12(2) of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. There will be only two relaxations in the law if this Bill is enacted. In the first case the treatment can be carried out either by a registered medical practitioner of the United Kingdom or by a registered medical practitioner of the country of the visiting force. I hope that when the right hon. Lady replies she will be able to confirm this.
The other relaxation is that hospital treatment can be carried out in a hospital under the National Health Service or in one controlled by the authorities of the visiting force. It could conceivably happen that treatment would be legal here although it was carried out in a sending country's force hospital although it would be quite illegal in the country of the sending force. The same could apply to the doctor carrying out the treatment. He could quite legally do the job in this country whether in a National Health Service hospital or—possibly in an emergency—in a hospital provided by the sending country of the visiting force.
As a result of the treatment being given, conflicts could easily arise. For example, the person in question might be exempted from criminal prosecution under the laws of the United Kingdom, but liable to criminal prosecution under the laws of the sending country. The Amendment seeks to avoid any such conflict of interest. It provides that treatment must comply both with the law of the United Kingdom and the law of the sending country in relation both to the doctor and the patient. The word "relevant" in the Amendment is for persons covered by the Clause, persons from the sending countries. This is particularly applicable to countries such as the United States of America, Malaysia, Australia and no doubt other countries which have federal constitutions where there may be different state laws affecting the problem of abortion.
I am sorry that there is no Scottish Minister present, because the problem I now wish to pose is in relation to the application of Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act, and the Schedule to the Act, to Scotland. Section 3 refers to offences against the person and the Schedule says:
In the application of the said section 3 to Scotland, the expression 'offence against the person' means any of the following offences, that is to say—
(a) murder, culpable homicide, rape, robbery, assault, incest, sodomy, lewd, indecent and libidinous practices, procuring abortion …
In the case of a component of a visiting force marrying a Scottish girl, it is conceivable that abortion might be necessary. She would be operated on by the doctor of the visiting force either in a hospital provided under that authority or in a National Health Service hospital. If, by mischance, the girl then dies, it is conceivable under the schedule to the Visiting Forces Act that the husband, although a foreigner, cannot be subject to prosecution because he procured an abortion. That is specifically left out of the Schedule to the Act, but he could bring an action for recklessness and unprofessional conduct on behalf of the doctor who carried out the abortion. That seems to me to be an extremely dangerous state of affairs, but I think that my Amendment will cover that and I hope that the right hon. Lady, when she replies, will answer that question.
Lastly, may I ask what she thinks would be the position of British hospitals working abroad—that is, the reverse of the case I have just postulated?

Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) was quite right in saying that members of a visiting force or headquarters would be covered by the Amendment, and I was myself quite right when I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Miss Anne Kerr) in saying that it applies, in practice, only to United States forces, because only the United States have sufficient forces in this country to establish their own Service hospitals. Obviously, if other countries established such hospitals here, they would he covered by Clause 3 of the Bill. In other words, it covers all countries, but only the United States have hospitals here, and the Clause refers to them.
The Clause allows registered medical practitioners or a doctor of a visiting force or headquarters to perform an abortion that would be lawful under Clause 1(1) in a hospital controlled by the force or headquarters, and on a woman who has a "relevant association " with that force or headquarters. The Amendment is apparently intended to prevent a doctor of such a body from performing an abortion if the circumstances were such as would make it an offence under the law of his own country, or the law of the country if it was different, of the woman on whom he operated.
There are technical difficulties in the Amendment, but I will not go into them because it is better to save the time of he House by dealing with the principle; therefore, I leave the technicalities on one side. The principle of the Amendment is open to objection because if a doctor of a visiting force or headquarters performs in the United Kingdom an abortion that is unlawful in his own country, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him from being liable' to face criminal proceedings under the law of his own country—and I repeat, under the law of his own country.
Section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, provides that the Service courts and Service authorities of a country to which that section applies may, within the United Kingdom, or on board any of

Her Majesty's ships or aircraft, exercise over persons subject to their jurisdiction all such powers as are exercisable by them according to the law of that country.
Therefore, if a doctor who was a member of a visiting force in this country performed an abortion that was lawful under the Bill but unlawful by the law applicable to the forces of his own country, there is nothing in the Bill, or in any other provisions, to prevent his being dealt with by his own authorities.
It is one thing for a foreign doctor to remain liable under the law of his own country for conduct in this country. It is quite another to make his liability under our law depend on the law of his own country. By the Amendment a visiting forces doctor might be liable to prosecution in our courts and to face a penalty of life imprisonment for conduct which would not be an offence if performed by a doctor registered in Britain and which might not be an offence if performed here by a doctor attached to a visiting force or headquarters from some other country.

Mr. Baker: Mr. Baker rose—

Miss Bacon: I would like to continue. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, although he said some things which might have provoked interruption.
This could create some quite unacceptable difficulties. Further, if the question of proceedings arose, the police in our country, and later the courts, would have to determine whether the alleged conduct would have constituted an offence under the law of some other country. This might be a well-nigh impossible task for our police. Therefore, apart from the defective drafting, I think that the House might consider that the Amendment is unacceptable.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the interests of facilitating progress on the Bill—I hope that this observation will be observed by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who is not here at the moment—I do not wish to prolong further discussion on the Amendment, which was so brilliantly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker). It has served a double purpose, first of eliciting a number of statements from the Minister of State, some of which will be helpful and some of which are not so


helpful. It has shown clearly that on a Clause of this complexity it is not asking too much to say that the Attorney-General should have been present or, if not the Attorney-General, at least the Solicitor-General, to give us some guidance on the meaning of this complicated Clause. Although the right hon. Lady is very gallant, she just does not have the legal qualifications which are undoubtedly needed to explain this sort of Amendment.

I believe, however, that the Amendment would be an improvement. I think that the case for it was made out by my hon. Friend and has not been adequately met in the argument of the right hon. Lady. I must therefore press the Amendment to a Division and I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 117.

Division No 468
AYES
[7.43 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
St. John-stevas, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Small, William


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr> Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Tinn, James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ward, Dame Irene


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugrh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Mr. Harold Gurden.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marten, Neil



NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Archer, Peter
Gardner, Tony
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Ashley, Jack
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Pardoe, John


Astor, John
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bessell, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
Reynolds, G. W.


Binns, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Richard, Ivor


Bishop, E. S.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Howie, W.
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, L.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ryan, John


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Sheldon, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras,S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Channon, H. P. G.
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Temple, John M.


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eadie, Alex
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, David
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John
Maude, Angus
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ennals, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ensor, David
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Farr, John
Millan, Bruce
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Murray, Albert



Forrester, John
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerry
Ogden, Eric
Mr. John Hunt and


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Christopher Price.

Clause 4.—(CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO OPERATION.)

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 3, line 38, after 'duty', to insert:
whether by contract or by any statutory other legal requirement'.
I think that it was generally agreed in Committee—I was not a member of the Committee, but I have read the reports—that a conscience Clause on the lines of Clause 4 was essential because, as one widened the scope in which the termination of a pregnancy ceased to be criminal, increasing pressures could be brought to bear on doctors and hospital staffs to perform an operation which might well be against their consciences. I understand that it was in the light of those considerations that the Clause was introduced.
The Amendment seeks to clarify, for .he benefit of the doctor or other hospital employee, exactly the extent of this protection. As the Clause is worded, it is not clear how far that protection extends. In particular, it is not clear that the words "any duty" in the second line of the Clause extend to and include the contractual obligations which may well apply to the employees of the hospital authority taking part or participating in the operation.
It seemed to us to be desirable that liability under contractual obligations should be covered. The purpose of this short but important Amendment is to spell out in as great detail as is deemed appropriate exactly the extent of the protection provided and what is implied by the opening provision of the Clause that
No doctor … shall be under any duty" by adding the words of the Amendment.
Although short, the Amendment is important for a doctor or a hospital employee with conscientious objections. I very much hope that the sponsor of the Bill will accept it.

Mr. David Steel: We come now to a series of Amendments on the very difficult question of a conscience Clause. It is fair that I should say at the outset I hat only recently I have received further representations indicating a desire for more discussions from the medical bodies about this Clause, with a view to altera-

tions being proposed in another place. In those circumstances, I am well disposed towards any Amendments put forward at the moment, and it enables me, in resisting other Amendments, to assure hon. Members that the drafting of the Clause is bound to be reconsidered, in any event.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this conscience Clause was drafted by him and myself, and that we have proceeded on the assumption that we would do as little as possible to alter the principle of having a conscience Clause which is accepted throughout the House.

Mr. Steel: Naturally, I hesitate to make any alterations to a Clause drafted so excellently by the hon. Gentleman and myself. Certainly, I will make sure that he is involved in any discussions before Amendments to the Clause are tabled in another place. Amendment No. 49 does not make a substantial difference to the Clause. But if the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) feels that it adds slightly to it, I will recommend to the House that we should accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Braine: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 3, line 39, to leave out 'participate in any operation' and to insert:
'terminate or participate in the termination of any pregnancy'.
This is an important Amendment which, I may say, has the full approval of the British Medical Association. It is designed to take account of the fact that the termination of a pregnancy is not always and certainly may not in the future, be a surgical operation.
I am sure that there are a number of hon. Members who are doctors who can confirm what I have been told, namely that there is no safe or medically acceptable method by which an abortion can be procured by means of drugs. On the other hand, the fact that it can be so procured and is, in cases of criminal abortion, is made clear in Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, as amended which provides that a pregnant woman who unlawfully administers to herself any poison or noxious thing, or anyone else who does


that with intent to procure a miscarriage, is guilty of a felony.
Lawyers who have experience of this in the courts will know that there are, in fact, dangerous substances which are used today by unfortunate women who are driven to this last resort. It would be quite wrong of me to name any of these, but while no registered practitioner in the country would use these substances, biochemical research is proceeding faster than almost any other branch of science. I am told that probably in the next decade, a safe chemical method of inducing therapeutic abortion may be developed and may be accepted by the medical profession.
I cannot put the probability higher than that, but that is what I am told. Therefore, if we are to be sure that the Bill is framed to take account of probable developments, I submit that the Amendment is necessary. If we are to incorporate into the law a right of conscientious objection to participating in the carrying out of an abortion, it is essential to use words which cover therapeutic abortion carried out by any means. The Amendment does this. I do not wish to detain the House further. I submit that the Amendment takes account of the realities of the situation. I am sure that it will strengthen and improve the Bill. In that spirit I commend it to the House, and hope that the sponsor of the Bill will be prepared to accept it.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) is correct in saying that the B.M.A. wish to achieve this Amendment to the Bill, for the reasons which he outlined. The B.M.A. discussed the same point with me.
I draw attention to the fact that the Clause as it stands relates simply to an operation, but with the developments which are taking place it is possible that in a few years' time termination may be carried out by some means other than an operation, in which case it would be difficult to see how this conscience Clause would take effect.
I am in a little difficulty over the Amendment, because I am advised not to accept it, I think on a very minor technical ground. Unless the Minister

of Health says that we cannot make this Amendment, I am inclined to accept it, because I believe that the point of the Amendment has not been fully grasped by those who were giving the advice.

Mr. K. Robinson: This is a defect in drafting, and if the Amendment were accepted by the House I think that it would have to be tidied up in another place. If it were accepted, the Clause would refer to pregnancies authorised by the Act, and not terminations authorised by the Act. Apart from that, I have not much advice to tender to the House.
In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Chelmsford on the last Amendment, may I say that I do not think it is universally accepted that a conscience Clause is necessary in the Bill. I consider that it is unnecessary, and I rather think that it is undesirable. This view is shared by some leaders of the medical profession. However, I agree that that would seem to have been the general view when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. Braine: Perhaps I might reply with the leave of the House. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would not wish to be a party to writing defective provisions into the law, but I rather gather from what the Minister says that if there is to be a conscience Clause he accepts the sense of what I was saying, and on the understanding that the proper wording can be inserted in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 40, after 'objection', to insert:
'or for which they do not consider there to be any medical justification'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that with that Amendment we can take No. 53, in page 3, line 41, at the end to insert 'or medical'.

Mr. Wylie: The Amendment poses the question of what flows from the provisions of Clause 1 whereby operations which are not at the moment legal become legal. The question posed is this: if the ambit of criminality is altered in this way, is there imposed a duty on persons participating in the operation?


If there is a duty enforceable by law, then liability in damages can result if the operation is not performed and injury results. It would appear from the way in which the Clause is worded that provided the criteria set out in Clause 1 are satisfied and the act is not criminal, a duty arises. The provision is worded in a rather negative way, in that it provides that no doctor shall be under any duty if he has conscientious objections. The Amendment is designed to deal with the situation where conscientious objections do not come into the picture, but where, in the exercise of a medical judgment, the opinion reached by the medical practitioner performing the operation and satisfying the criteria laid down in Clause 1 is not shared.
Perhaps I am not very clear at this hour of the morning. My mind is not working as clearly as I would have liked, but the position is that it ceases to be a criminal act provided that the criteria under Clause 1 are satisfied. Does it follow that there is a duty to participate in this operation, or is a discretion left o someone qualified to exercise discretion in this matter who would, notwithstanding the criteria laid down in Clause being satisfied, refuse to participate in this operation?
As the Clause stands at the moment it seems to me that that is not so. Provided the medical practitioner who is to terminate the pregnancy is satisfied under Clause 1 it would appear, unless there it a conscientious objection—and I am not concerned with that point now—that there is an obligation on other hospital employees, including doctors—because an anaesthetist may be involved—to participate even though he, in his medical judgment, does not share the view of the medical practitioner who s carrying out the operation.
In these rather special and perhaps narrow circumstances it seemed to us desirable that a discretion should be written into the Clause enabling a qualified person who has reached a medical judgment in this way, and is satisfied that there is no medical justification for the operation being carried out, not to be under an obligation to participate in the operation, and that he should be free from any liability which might otherwise result by his refusing to take part in it. That is the purpose of the Amend-

ment and I suggest that it is at least an Amendment which requires careful consideration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will even be prepared to accept it.

Mr. David Steel: I am sorry to tell the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that I cannot extend my generosity in accepting Amendments to this one. He would probably agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) tabled the Amendment in an attempt to counteract what he regarded as the then rather wide wording of Clause 1(1,a), including the reference to wellbeing. I am sure that if the right hon. and learned Member were here he would not feel bound to press the Amendment, considering that the earlier part of the Bill has been amended on Report. The Bill imposes no obligation on anyone to participate in an operation. Simply because Clause 4, the "conscience" Clause, says that there is no duty on a doctor, the hon. Gentleman should not think that a duty is put on him elsewhere. The Clause is not necessary, but it was felt right to spell this out.
The doctor would still have the general duty to care for his patients, and someone with a conscientious objection could still be guilty of negligence if he declined advice or did not refer the matter to a colleague, with disastrous results for his patient. The Clause also gives nurses and hospital employees a clear right to opt out. But it would be impossible if, after a decision that an abortion was necessary, there were conflicting views between the nurses and the doctors about what was medically justifiable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a valid objection to the Amendment and will withdraw it.

Mr. Maddan: I am not happy with the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Bill imposes no obligation. If so, what is the harm of making it clear by accepting the Amendment? The Amendment brings out that abortion is different from other forms of medical care—that is the important element. I do not agree with the Bill, but hon. Members who do surely would not think abortion, which involves the destruction of another human being, comparable to any other medical practice. The hon. Member recognised that by his statement that no obligation was


imposed, so his position is inherently illogical. We have now come to the bones of the matter—that abortions are different from other medical practices because they involve the destruction of another being.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, who has taken a generous view of the Clause as a whole, and whose difficulties I understand in having accepted the principle of such a Clause, will understand the reasons why those who are not in favour of the Bill think this Amendment important. If no one is bound to perform this operation, surely he will at least agree that the Amendment will not do harm.

8.15 a.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: If I advise the House, it is in the sense of what has been said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I have one other argument which might help meet the difficulties of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). I share the view of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that the Bill will confer no duty on any doctor to operate.
The supporters of the Amendment are in difficulty in that the prop of the Amendment has been removed once "well-being" has been taken out of the Bill, and there is the further difficulty that termination is now only possible on medical grounds and therefore a termination for which there was no medical justification could not possibly be legal. There could not possibly in any circumstances be a duty on any doctor to commit an act which was unlawful. For these reasons, it stands out that the Amendment could not possibly be acceptable.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I hope that the Amendment will be rejected. First, it is clear that it is not necessary. Secondly, it would be quite unworkable. How could a nurse or an employee—which, I suppose, can mean a hospital porter—be expected to know in all the circumstances whether an abortion is justifiable?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I am rather worried about this from the other direc-

tion because the point made earlier that abortion is really rather different from most operations is true. It seems to me that a nurse, although she may not be qualified to express a medical judgment and although, as the Bill stands, only abortions on medical grounds will be justifiable, might still have grave doubts as to whether there is a justification for what many people regard as the taking of a life.
I hope that this aspect will be carefully looked at so that we do not get a person persecuted, in effect, for making a judgment which might not be on grounds of conscience or religion but on other grounds which trouble her. I hope that this difficulty will be overcome or taken into account in the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Percival: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) about the reasonable approach of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to this Amendment, and I hope to be equally reasonable. Even from the short debate we have had, it is apparent that there are at least two possible views about several of the matters referred to.
I make a plea that these matters should be further considered before a final decision is reached. I do not think that we can reach a final decision this morning. The problems involved are much too difficult. They are most complicated matters of law. If we try to reach a final decision this morning, we are bound to get it wrong.
The sponsor suggested—and was supported by the Minister—that now that well-being has gone there should be no necessity for this. With respect, that is not right, because medical justification is a matter of opinion. There is no absolute test for it. There could be three doctors, two of whom considered that there was medical justification and one of whom, equally sincerely, considered that there was not. If the third, who sincerely disagreed with his colleagues, might be required to participate but for an exception such as this, then we agree that there should be some exception for him. That is one reason why I should like the sponsor and the Minister to look at this again.
Secondly, I doubt what has been said about the absence of a general duty. I understand that it is not the intention of the sponsors of the Bill to impose duties, bat obviously my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) feels that that is by no means as clear as has been suggested by the sponsor and the Minister. One must read the Statute as a whole. It exempts a wide range of people from duties. If they are under no duty, that is unnecessary. But once it is there and the courts have to read the Act as a whole, they will say, "Unless Parliament meant to impose a duty, Clause 4 is otiose, and therefore we must assume that there are some duties".

Mr. Corfield: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. There is also the danger of cutting down the duty of care at common law if what the Minister said is right. We ought to have the advice of the Law Officers.

Mr. Percival: I agree that it would e of value. What worries me, particularly in Clause 4, is that it postulates that somebody might be under a criminal liability for refusing to take part in an abortion. This is an exception Clause protecting someone who has refused to take part in an abortion. It protects him from criminal and civil liability. At the moment I can think of no circumstances in which a doctor would be under criminal liability for refusing to take part. I can see where he might be liable for agreeing to take part but not for refusing. The Clause postulates that he might be under such a liability. It might be the view of any court that after the passage of the Bill a doctor had some rights to perform an abortion where the conditions under Clause 1(1) are satisfied. I ask that the point be considered again.
I accept that the application of the Amendment might be very narrow and that it would have no application to the doctor carrying out an abortion because ex hypothesi, having regard to the Clause, he has formed the opinion that there is medical justification. I take the point of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) that one is not contemplating situations in which the nurses and the hospital orderlies are seeking to put their opinion in the place of that of the doctors. But

even though we narrow the scope, there is one category where this may be necessary. In a National Health Service hospital one has assistant anaesthetists, who are under contract. They are qualified people and entitled to an opinion on medical jusification. Under their contract of service they might be obliged to participate in a termination of pregnancy for which they considered there was no medical justification.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Could my hon. and learned Friend explain a little further what he means about the nurses? What does he envisage the Clause means with regard to them on the question of conscience? Is he assuming that it must be because of a religious conviction that a nurse wishes not to take part in the operation?

Mr. Percival: The mental picture I have of conscientious objection is that there is a dichotomy between medical objection and conscientious objection. People may just have a feeling inside that they do not want to be any part of the termination of a pregnancy—and I thought that the House acknowledged that people might have that feeling and that we should respect it—or because of a denominational religious feeling or humanist feelings nurses might not want to be any part of such an operation. I thought that the object was to recognise that people might have these feelings and to excuse them.
That is where I think that the conscientious objection comes in with the nurses. I do not visualise excluding nurses and orderlies on medical justification, but just the small category of people that I have mentioned. Unless somebody can satisfy us later that the example I gave is not a practical possibility, as I believe it to be, I suggest that the Amendment has substantial practical merits.

Mr. Braine: I regret that the sponsor brushed aside the cogent argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). I hope that there can be reconsideration of this whole question, not necessarily now, but when the Bill enters another place.
I favoured the conscience Clause in the first place much less on behalf of


doctors than of nurses, if only because, unlike the former, nurses are part of a team and in the operating theatre take their orders directly from a doctor.
It was not surprising that the Royal College of Nurses, the Royal College of Midwives and, I think, also the Association of Hospital Matrons, asked for the provision of a clearly drafted conscience Clause in order to safeguard the position of nurses. This was not merely because of circumstances whether the consciences of nurses might conflict with the duties they were called upon to perform but to obviate any deterrent effect the Bill might have upon nursing recruitment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not now discussing the Clause. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Braine: In the case of doctors, however, it is not only their religious and moral convictions that may bring them into conflict with the somewhat more permissive situation that the Bill is expected to create but also their medical judgment. It is true that there is nothing in the Bill that relieves the doctor from the obligation that he owes to his patient. It is equally true that no doctor is compelled to terminate a pregnancy if for any reason he feels unable to do so since he can refer the patient to another practitioner.
It is also true—and this is why I would not go to the stake for the Amendments—that the British Medical Association is not particularly in favour of the Clause as it is drafted where doctors are concerned. This is why I hope that the door will be kept open and that there can be reconsideration of the whole matter when the Bill reaches another place.
8.30 a.m.
What I would say to the House is this: If we are to have a conscience Clause, then I think the Amendments do represent a step in the right direction; they strengthen the Clause. There are thousands of Roman Catholic doctors who may well have a clear conscientious objection on religious grounds and who may feel themselves in hazard of litigation if they do not agree to terminations of pregnancy. The right hon. Gentleman came to the Box and said that the Amendment is unnecessary since, with

the removal of the word" well-being" from the Bill the operation can now only be permitted on medical grounds, and his argument is, as I understand it, that if a doctor considers the operation not justified medically then he will consider it unlawful, and it follows, therefore, that the doctor would not be under any duty to perform the operation which he believes to be unlawful.

Mr. K. Robinson: I said it would be unlawful if he thought it was medically unjustified.

Mr. Braine: Yes. That is right. I hope I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly. If this is so, I fear he has overlooked—

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Catholic doctors. Is he asking the House to believe it is only Catholic doctors who will have an objection to performing the operation or only Catholic nurses? If that is the case, I can assure him and others that there are thousands of people who are not Roman Catholics who have exactly the same objection.

Mr. Braine: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I will go further and say that it is within my knowledge that many gynaecologists, some serving my constituency, up and down the country who are not Roman Catholics and whose training, whose whole ethos, is dedicated to the preservation of life, and who share the same objections on moral grounds which Roman Catholic doctors would have. That I readily accept.
But what I was saying was that there may be quite a substantial number of doctors who would have a medical objection and who may fear that, in the circumstances, they would be laying themselves open to the possibility of litigation. That view has been expressed to me. There may be no grounds for it, but that view has been expressed to me.
What I want to say is that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the whole story, because he overlooked the fact that we have retained in the Bill the extraordinary provision in Clause 1(1,a) that abortion is permissible where
the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the … future well-being"—
of the mother and
her other children".


This is a different criterion from the one which—

Mr. David Steel: I am sure the hon. Member is unintentionally misquoting. There is no reference to the "well-being of other children" at all.

Hon. Members: Wrong Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may intervene at this stage I would suggest we must come to the Amendment, which about medical justification.

Mr. Braine: If what I have just said is wrong, then this is something which can be taken care of when the matter is discussed, I hope fully, in another place, but I venture to think that what I have said is not wrong and will bear examination when the record is seen in HANSARD.
What I am saying is that leaders of the medical profession have indicated to me that they object to this very much. This could lead to doubt and confusion. Why the health of the other children and no: that of a sick husband?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Braine: This is part of the business, Mr. Speaker, of performing a proper medical judgment. However, I will not pursue the point, because I think I have made it. It is my contention that as long a s there is to be a conscience Clause in the Bill then something along the lines of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would strengthen it, and I hope that before we complete this discussion we shall have an assurance that this matter will be further considered.

Sir D. Glover: I am puzzled by the Amendment. I understand that we are now dealing with the case of a doctor who has conscientious objections to carrying out this operation; that in a particular case he considers that an abortion is not medically justified, although in other cases he may think otherwise. I suggest that we should not take this matter too far.
In 1963 I was very ill and spent a lot of time in hospital. The medical profession was confused about my case. Eventually I had a major operation. The physician thought that I should have the

operation while the surgeon was against the idea, although he performed it. There is always a good deal of confusion about cases and experts often disagree. When discussing our cases at the bottom of our beds or while we are on the operating table, the professional men frequently argue about the best course of action. However, these disagreements are part of a hospital's team spirit, and if we do anything to disturb that spirit we will not be doing that hospital any good. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment too far.

Mr. Wylie: I have listened with interest to the remarks for and against the Amendment, and I still consider that it has considerable merit. If the doctors had no grounds for taking the initial decision, it could not be a legal act, anyway. The Amendment deals with the case in which another medically qualified person takes the view, notwithstanding the initial decision, that there is no justification for the operation.
This proposal is designed to preserve that element of discretion, in the light of the drafting of the Clause. In view of what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, I suggest that the Clause is still in a somewhat fluid state. In the hope that the aspect covered by the Amendment will be further considered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, wthdrawn.

Mrs. Knight: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 3, line 40, to leave out from 'objection' to the end of line 42.
It is no secret that doctors are very worried about the "conscience" Clause, and so are nurses, and one of their main objections is to the last part, which the Amendment seeks to delete.
I draw to the attention of the House precisely what I seek to remove from the Clause, because it is of very great importance. It first states:
No doctor, nurse, hospital employee nor any other person shall be under any duty, nor shall they in any circumstances be required, to participate in any operation authorised by this Act to which they have a conscientious objection."—


and then we come to the words which I and many members of the medical profession feel strongly should be withdrawn:
provided that in any civil or criminal action the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming it.
There is no doubt that the Clause as it now stands suggests that failure to carry out an abortion will put a doctor or a nurse in the courts for neglect. That is extremely serious, because it means that the burden of proof will rest on the doctor or the nurse, and that would be an entirely new departure from the principle that has governed our courts for so long, that the burden of proof rests on the person bringing the charge and not on the person who is accused of whatever the crime may be.
I believe that I am right in saying—and here I should like the guidance of someone on the Treasury Bench—that in a criminal prosecution the burden of proof, subject to certain statutory exceptions that are fairly rare, rests throughout on the prosecution. A man brought to court suspected of, say, a criminal attack or a burglary, stands in the dock innocent until he has been proved guilty. The Clause would completely change that position. Again, in a civil action, the party making the claim normally has to establish it.
A person accused of embezzlement or any crime of that type is innocent until he has been proved guilty—not so the doctor or the nurse, or other people who may have been involved in a refusal to carry out an abortion. On them, because of this so-called "conscience" Clause, rests the burden of proof. This is something that the House should not sanction because of the very important change it seems to herald.
It may be fairly simple to refute charges of involvement in burglary or embezzlement, but to refute a charge based entirely on one's own conscience is a terribly difficult task to ask of anyone. A man's conscience is his own special voice, no one else even hears it, and how on earth it is imagined that it is fair, right or reasonable by this Clause to put a doctor or a nurse in the dock and then say "Right—you prove that your conscience has stopped you from carrying out this abortion," I do not know.

8.45 a.m.

Mr. Sharples: On a point of order. My hon. Friend is raising a most important legal point. I hope that there is someone on the Government Front Bench who is qualified and able to answer it.

Mr. Snow: I can inform the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) that I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady. I am anxious to hear what she says.

Mrs. Knight: I was dealing with the extreme difficulty of proving that a voice inside one has been a sufficient reason to make one refuse to carry out an abortion, and I was pointing out that this is almost impossible. Suppose that the doctor does not have a religious objection. Earlier we have referred to doctors who have a religious objection which is clearly defined by the religion to which they belong. I do not belong to that religion, but if I were a doctor there would be circumstances in which my conscience would forbid me to carry out an abortion. Not all conscientious objections will be on religious grounds. A doctor who has examined a patient may say that in all conscience he could not carry out an abortion because he did not feel that the abortion was justified.
A very worried doctor has put to me the question, suppose that he had carried out an abortion before? This would make it even more difficult for him to clear himself in the dock. Those making charges against him could say, "It is clear that you do not have a conscientious objection because you have carried out this operation before." [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is putting a very important argument. I hope that hon. Members will listen and not chatter.

Mrs. Knight: The objection may have nothing to do with religion. The objector might still dictate through his or her conscience that a nurse or doctor should not carry out an abortion in a particular case.

Mr. Braine: Would my hon. Friend agree that many doctors are indeed worried about the provision in Clause 1(1,a), which refers to the health of the


other children? Would she agree that this is causing a great deal of confusion and anxiety to doctors who would not be prepared to include this in making a medical judgment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even interventions must be in order. We are discussing the burden of proof.

Mrs. Knight: Since one of the causes for which abortion will be legal is if the health of the other children would be impaired, I take it that if a doctor refused to carry out an abortion on those grounds he would have difficulty in proving it. The so-called safeguards are entirely illusory. I make reference to three communications I have received. The first is a letter from the Medical Defence Union, for whom, hon. Members will readily recognise, this Clause has special importance. The letter, dated 5th May, says:
Needless to say, the Union is quite clear in its position that any of its members who are attacked as the result of their advice upon a request for termination of pregnancy, will be vigorously defended.
This applies whether their advice has been purely on obstetric or psychiatric grounds, or to some extent modified by conscientious grounds. We can envisage a situation where a practitioner might be criticised by a patient who assumed that there had been a conscientious element in unwelcome advice given by a doctor, when, in fact, the advice had been based purely on a clinical assessment of the patient.
The Medical Defence Union is in a difficulty about this and intensely concerned over this Clause and the way in which it is worded.
I would like to refer to a letter from a consultant gynaecologist, Mr. Anthony Alment, who writes,
Is it the intention of the Bill, as the wording: of the conscience Clause 'seems to imply, to coerce the majority of gynaecologists into its agency by the threat of exposure to civil litigation?
This man is definitely worried about this "conscience" Clause, and he goes on to say;
No one should be in any doubt about how the majority of us will respond. In matters so deeply explored in our own thinking as decisions to terminate or not, we have no fear of civil action, but only deplore the sad and futile exercise of time, skill, and patience involved.
This raises another objection to this particularly objectionable Clause. Mr. Alment rather courageously writes that

he and his colleagues have no fear of civil action, but this Clause, without my Amendment, would mean that men in great demand in hospitals have the risk of having to stand in court defending themselves against these accusations.
Another gynaecologist wrote,
This is a most unfortunate Clause. It assumes that all abortions are good, and that not to abort is an evil. For this so-called evil, society proposes to put doctors in the dock to defend their actions and prove their innocence".
I was surprised to see the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) come, as it were, starry-eyed and surprised at the beginning of the debate on this "conscience" Clause and to hear him say that the doctors have just recently put forward objections and that he was ready to meet them. But, surely, this could have been no surprise to him. He has known that the doctors have been worried about this and, to pinpoint this, I would say that it seems to be in an important point for hon. Members to realise that the sponsors of this Bill fully understood, as long ago certainly as 4th May, what was the attitude.
The hon. Member then had a meeting with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the B.M.A., and the findings which were reached were as follow:
The profession's spokesmen said that the wording of 'conscience Clause' had seemed to some to be an invitation to litigation—directed at the practitioner who exercised discretion on ethical and clinical grounds in recommending termination".
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said,
… he would welcome such views as the medical defence organisations gave, and agreed that the Clause could be improved".
The Amendment which we are now moving seeks to ensure that the "conscience" Clause would have the support of the professions concerned and, because it raises points which have a great potential, I would hope very strongly that it will be accepted.

Mr. David Steel: I am sorry that in an otherwise fine presentation of her case the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) saw fit at the tail end of her speech to cast


doubt on my intentions. What she recited is true. This is the difficulty that I explained to the House earlier. When I last met the Royal College and the British Medical Association, they had nothing better to suggest. They said that this raised certain problems in their minds. I said that when they came forward with considered views obviously I would give them serious thought. That is the position. Those bodies have now come forward with certain views, but there has not been time—they accept in their correspondence with me that this will probably have to be dealt with in another place because of the shortage of time—to take all the advice which is necessary and to consider all the implications of their suggestions. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will cease her accusations of some form of bad faith or innocence on my part.
To deal with the substance of her argument, it is true that the profession as a whole is greatly concerned about the difficulty of the conscience Clause. As the Minister of Health said earlier, it is the view of a substantial body of the profession that this Clause is unnecessary and raises all sorts of unnecessary complications. I said that, despite this, I think that we should pursue the effort to secure a Clause which will satisfy those who believe that there should be some clear conscience Clause in the Bill. We must be careful that—this is what we think would happen if the Amendment were accepted—in providing a conscience Clause we do not leave a loophole in the Bill which will leave the situation wide open for an open defence which could never be substantiated in the event of any criminal or civil action against a medical practitioner.
To take one of the cases the hon. Lady instanced, what about the doctor who cannot produce a particular religious objection to abortions as such, the doctor who has in fact in certain cases performed abortions in the past? The hon. Lady said that he might have a conscientious objection. Clearly, he does not have a conscientious objection. If a doctor has performed a termination of pregnancy, he clearly does not have a conscientious objection to the process of terminating a pregnancy. What he may have, quite rightly, is an objection to carrying out the termination of pregnancy

in a particular case. The basis of that objection is not a conscientious one. It is a question of his medical judgment, that he has come to the conclusion that in his view, which may be quite different from that of another doctor, in a particular case the process of termination is unnecessary, that he has weighed up the balance of factors and in his view the criteria do not exist to enable him to carry out a medical termination. He is perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion, but if manifestly it turns out that there has been negligence in a case and that as a result a patient dies—if there is obvious evidence of negligence in his coming to a professional conclusion—it must be open for the State to prosecute and it must be open for civil actions to be taken against a doctor in respect of this operation as it is open for them to be taken in the case of other operations.
Given that this is so, and given that the law must operate in respect of this operation as it operates in respect of any other, we cannot leave a bolt hole in the Bill as a result of which a doctor could say when charged with negligence, "I had a conscientious objection" so that that would be the end of the case. This would be the situation if we left out the latter part of the conscience Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it would.
Therefore, in Committee—the hon Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I came to an agreement on this—it was recognised that any conscience Clause must have some matter in it making it quite clear that in normal circumstances the conscientious objection would be known and would be stated beforehand. It need not necessarily be so, but if someone is to seek to use the Clause in a case of negligence the burden of proof of the existence of a conscientious objection must rest on the person claiming it.
9.0 a.m.
I will give another example. There is the case of a nurse. I have a great respect for the nursing profession and I am not saying that my example is likely to happen, but it could. In an evening's operating theatre list there are two cases of terminations and two nurses on duty suddenly discover they have an important date and are not in the theatre, but have suddenly left.

Hon. Members: Shocking!

Mr. Steel: I said this need not happen, so the hon. Lady need not shout indignant noises, and we have said that we accept the basic reason for having this in the Clause. I recognise the concern about the wording here. I do not believe it is an incitement to a civil or criminal action. I accept that there are difficulties and that hon. Members are concerned about wording.
That is why I said I am not closing my mind to representations made here, and I am certain that the views put forward here will be carefully considered by me and by the leaders of the medical profession when we come to consider Amendments for the other place. But the principle of safeguard in the conscience Clause is one we must preserve, and I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I rise to speak for the first time, because this is a part of the Bill which gives me concern. It is unusual to put the burden on a person to prove his or her innocence, but it is not right to say that the criminal law does not do that. In certain cases it does put that burden on the man in the dock.
The case I wish to mention is that of a doctor who in desperate circumstances has once performed an abortion. The most ardent opponent of the Bill would agree that it might be necessary. In those circumstances, if a doctor performed an abortion, would he be unable subsequently to raise the conscience Clause at all if an abortion was on trivial grounds? It may come within the Bill if one of the doctors thought some of the grounds trivial. Does the fact that he once performed an abortion in desperate circumstances make him liable for ever and ever to have to prove himself innocent?
This is a difficult point, as the sponsor has indicated. He should feel sure that there is a great deal of feeling among people like me who have supported every Clause. It is unusual and I can see the dangers for the medical profession. I hope he will consider this.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel indicated assent.

Mr. Crowder: I wish to address the House on the burden of proof. On a

criminal matter, such as this could well be, this is a fundamental of our criminal law and the liberty of the subject. It is singularly unfortunate that we have not had legal advice from the Government. I am glad, however, to see the Leader of the House here. I read an article written by him about his father some years ago in the Sunday Times in which he said that he had told him that it he had gone to the Bar he would have gone to the criminal Bar. I suppose that it is on that basis that we are being advised at this moment.
One of the difficult features of the Clause is that it is quite impossible to look into a man's mind as one can look into a mirror or a book. It will present a very great difficulty for any doctor or nurse to prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he or she had a conscientious objection.
I should say in passing that there is a difference between the burden of proof in criminal cases in certain instances when it is placed very rarely upon the defendant. The difference is this. The Crown has to prove its case to the satisfaction of the jury so that the members of the jury can feel sure of it. If there be hesitation in their minds, there is present what is sometimes called a reasonable doubt. If such doubt of substance be present, it must, by the law of England, be resolved in favour of the person in the dock and he or she is entitled as of right to be acquitted in those circumstances.
Consider, however, an occasion where the burden shifts, where a man is found with housebreaking implements, which can either be innocent or not, in the back of his car—torches, screwdrivers and the like. The burden of proof shifts upon him to show that he had reasonable excuse for having those instruments in his possession. The burden of proof is nothing like so strong in those circumstances, however, because he has to satisfy a jury only on the balance of probabilities and not on the basis that they can feel sure of it. Those principles must apply to the Clause. It is something to which I ask the House to give further thought.

Mr. William Wells: The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has stated


accurately the principles governing this matter. For myself, I do not think that the general principles are a great deal of help to us in this case.
The difficulty is simply this. It is easy enough for anybody to say that he has an objection, but how is he to establish that it is a conscientious objection? For a Roman Catholic like myself, it is easy, for a Quaker it is easy, but a man who does not belong to one of the established and accepted religious denominations has to go into his mental processes. If he is an articulate man, perhaps he can succeed; but if he is not, this is a very heavy burden and one which, in my view, no defendant should be asked to bear.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my hon. and learned Friend take it from me that I do not surrender the rights of conscience to Roman Catholics or anybody else? As long as deeply personal, conscientious conviction is held, that is enough. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that in the standing orders of this party of ours we recognise a deeply-held conscientious conviction. I feel rather strongly on this. The idea that a Catholic can somehow prove a conscience rather more easily—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech on this intervention.

Mr. Wells: I entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says. He has elaborated with much greater force and clarity than I am capable of the very point I was seeking to make. An agnostic might be placed in a position of difficulty in explaining himself to a jury. In the Parliamentary Labour Party, we understand the rules, and they are carried out in a very humane spirit. But for someone having to explain himself to a jury to be placed in the position of having to establish that he has a conscientious objection, unless he has a very simple explanation of the character which I gave, is a burden which, in my view, no defendant should be called upon to bear.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amplifying equipment does not appear to be working properly and it is difficult to hear in this part of the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will have that inquired into.

Mr. van Straubenzee: If the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) goes on making lengthy interventions, we shall have to move the closure on him.
The sponsor of the Bill has told us that the whole of this Clause is under close reconsideration. He has been very generous in his reconsideration of certain matters at an earlier stage. There is now a mood in the House to get on, and I think that we could have got long past this point if the hon. Gentleman had removed all difficulty by indicating without reservation that he would reconsider this point so that it could be discussed again in another place. If he were to intervene and remove the reservation which he made in the closing words of his last speech, probably we could make better progress.
There are two very short matters which stick in the gizzards of many. First, unintentionally I am sure, he misled the House in his interpretation of the legal position. Taking the case of the hypothetical nurses, a clear case of negligence would stand regardless. He must examine the matter with greater care.
The second point is that the Clause refers, among other matters, to such a doctor or nurse being required to participate. Imagine the situation of a young doctor who is required to participate. If there is a straightforward conscience Clause, the matter ends. If there is not, he has to go through some kind of process to establish his conscientious objection. Any of us who have had dealings with the tasteless business of claims against the medical profession know how deeply reluctant many doctors are to go into courts of law and appear before tribunals and inquiries.
I cannot see that this need be the sticking point that it appears to have become. It needs a little more elasticity from the hon. Gentleman, and then we can get on.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: Inadvertently, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) did not notice my attempts to intervene during her speech, and I want to deal with the two points which I wanted to put to her.
The first is with regard to the burden of proof. I am a member of the legal profession, but I cannot claim to be an expert in the law of evidence, and I would defer to hon. and learned Members who are members of what is described as the "senior branch" of the profession. However, I remember reading in my student days that facts which were within the peculiar knowledge of the person who was averring shifted the burden of proof on to him. I thought that that was logical in the case cited by the hon. Lady, who referred to a person's conscience as being something peculiar to and known only to himself. What will be the burden of proof in a civil or criminal action in an attempt to prove that a doctor or nurse had failed in his or her duty? Obviously it would have to be proved, first, that there was a failure in a duty.

9.15 a.m.

Mrs. Knight: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is right in saying that I did not notice him when I was speaking. Had I done so, I would have given way to him. I thought that the point I was making was absolutely clear, that the burden of proof for this particularly and peculiarly difficult thing, a conscience, should be thrust not on the person who is accusing the doctor or tie nurse, but on the doctor to prove that he is innocent.

Mr. Robinson: I am coming to that. I have said that the prosecution would, in the first place, have to establish the offence that a failure to perform a duty had occurred. Could it possibly be laid on the prosecution to prove in addition that the doctor had no conscientious objection to doing it? How can one prove the negative of the existence of a conscientious objection? Obviously it must be within the province of anybody claiming to object, because his conscience tells him to, to establish that his conscience is clear.
I pass now to another question, not on the criminal or civil law, but in my view related to it. I cast my mind back to instances during the war when people whom I knew conscientiously objected to the taking of life. I think that there is a certain similarity here. They were given the opportunity of attending before a tribunal, and they had to prove to the

satisfaction of the tribunal that their conscience was such that it would not allow them to take life. In what respect is asking a doctor to prove his conscientious objection—

Mr. Weitzman: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the tribunals for conscientious objectors which were set up during the war to establish the conscientious objections of an individual to engage in military service. Does my hon. Friend know, or recall, the many questions which were put by members of these tribunals, which made it almost impossible for some people to establish a conscientious objection?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for supplementing and strengthening my case. He has emphasised the difficulties which a conscientious objector had to overcome before a tribunal, but the hon. Lady is suggesting that what applied to a young man in his early 'twenties in endeavouring to satisfy his conscience should not be applied to the more sophisticated doctor, with the aid of his Medical Defence Union.

Sir M. Galpern: It may be a nurse.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The conscientious objections of the young man were within the knowledge of that young man only, and it was right that a tribunal should castigate and question him closely to establish whether he was putting forward a genuine claim.
I see no reason why a doctor—or a nurse—who is not carrying out a duty which would normally be expected of him should not be expected to prove the truth of the case. I refer again to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend about the difficulties which confronted people who had no specific or apparent objection on conscientious grounds. Obviously the task was very much easier for the tribunal to establish the truth of the case if the person concerned was a Quaker, a member of the Society of Friends, or of a religious persuasion which objected to the taking of life, but there were many instances of people who objected to the taking of life, not on religious grounds—even some agnostics were conscientious objectors—but on political grounds, but this did not


excuse them from the onerous task of establishing the case.
For 15 years I have been intimately associated with a medical organisation. I therefore cannot be accused of not knowing the doctors' side of the question. I appreciate all their difficulties, but I cannot think that any reasonably-minded doctor would object to having the opportunity of establishing his objection to taking part in something in which he disbelieved wholeheartedly.

Mr. Buck: The question is one of extreme difficulty and it would be appropriate at this stage to have really expert legal guidance. The Parliamentary Secretary will reply with great courtesy, but this is a matter of such difficulty that one of the Law Officers should be here to advise the House. I apologise to the House in advance in that although I am a lawyer I have been up for the whole night except for the last one-and-a-quarter hours, which I have spent having a bath and doing other things, so my mind is not clear at this stage.
I have the greatest sympathy with the Amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), but I am doubtful whether the Amendment has, in law, the effect she desires. The Clause provides that
No doctor, nurse, hospital employee nor any other person shall be under any duty, nor shall they in any circumstances be required, to participate in any operation authorised by this Act to which they have a conscientious objection …".
As I see it, this will mean that a person will be able to be brought before a court and will have to establish—even with the Amendment—that he has a conscientious objection to participating in the abortion. If that be the case my hon. Friend's Amendment does not have the desired effect. The doctor will have to prove that he did not participate because of his conscientious objection.
The conscientious objection which a doctor may have is of a twofold character. He may have a conscientious objection to performing any type of abortion. This would be the view taken by some Roman Catholic doctors. If such a doctor were able to sustain the argument that he did have a conscientious objection to any

form of abortion, he would not be liable to either civil or criminal action.
The second type of conscientious objection is to performing the specific abortion which he was at one stage asked to perform. He could have a legitimate conscientious objection to performing an abortion on a woman where there was a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities. He may, for quite good conscientious grounds, think that we had gone too far in the Bill, and that his conscience did not allow him to follow the views of the majority of hon. Members on that issue.
I would like to see it made as easy as possible for such a doctor to be able to establish his conscientious objection. At the moment I cannot see how the Amendment would affect the situation. The Government have taken much trouble with the Bill, and have kindly allowed us to debate it for a whole night. They have given second-class Government time for us to do so. We take the view that they should be able to think of some form of words which will make it easier for a doctor to establish his conscientious objection to performing an abortion under the Bill.

Mr. Snow: I understand the desire for legal expert advice, but more can sometimes be achieved by commonsense and an understanding of the humanities of the matter. Opinions are often expressed from this Box by someone like myself who is not a lawyer but who has studied the matter deeply and has received legal advice. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) thought that the burden of proof should rest not with the person who claimed conscientious objections but with the challenger, because it might be difficult to prove conscientious objections.
This is a nebulous conception, and it is not clear how it would be interpreted by the courts, and there might be difficulties for anyone whose objections were not religious or who objected to some operations and not to others. In the first case, the sort of operations which a doctor would not perform could be recorded in his terms of engagement. In the second, he could secure another opinion or refer the case. The proviso


is intended to deal with the risk of a negligent doctor excusing himself with a spurious objection which might be difficult to disprove.
The proviso is useful, because it is not clear where the burden of proof would rest. Therefore, its mere removal would not meet the hon. Lady's object. I was disturbed by this matter in Committee, and, had there been a Division on Clause 1(1,b), I would have voted against it as it is, but the Government's advice is that it is desirable to have the safeguard that the burden of proof should rest with the person claiming the objection.

9.30 a.m.

Mrs. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that I would have been more than willing to withdraw this Amendment had there been some indication that the matter would be looked at again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not raising a point of order. She has the right to make a second speech on her Amendment, by leave of the House.

Mrs. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful. It is not my intention to hold up the proceedings but, as has been made clear by many hon. Members, this matter does not deserve to be dropped at this point. I am always ready to defer to those who know better than I, particularly in such specialties as the law and medicine. But, in the debate, members of the legal profession have confessed themselves to be not clear as to what the precise implications of the Amendment might be.
My Amendment was put forward in good faith in an attempt to rectify a bad situation, and I recognise that it may not be the best form of words to adopt. But, with the legal advice of the right calibre, we would surely know precisely

what we were doing. I feel strongly that the wording of the Clause is a direct invitation to litigation. That is the point I wish to stress, but it has been dodged, and because there has been no indication that it will be looked at again, I wish to press my Amendment.

Mr. Wylie: This is obviously a complicated matter and I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I must draw attention to a difficulty which arises in Scottish civil practice if the onus of proof is fairly and squarely put on the doctor in this way. It will not arise in Scottish criminal practice because there is no necessity for corroboration of an accused person putting up a defence of this nature or any other. It is sufficient, if he is uncorroborated, for him to satisfy the jury or to leave it in an element of reasonable doubt sufficient to justify his acquittal. But that does not apply in civil practice and in a civil action of damages. The way in which the Clause is drafted means that it would be necessary for the doctor to prove not only by his own evidence but by corroborative evidence that he had a conscientious objection. That may be very difficult for him to do.
Accordingly, if the matter is to be reconsidered I hope that this point arising from the law of evidence in Scotland in civil cases will be borne in mind. But this is only one of the many difficulties that this complicated Clause introduces—and all this arises, as we know, because we are extending the circumstances in which abortion can be carried out far beyond the border of what many people consider justifiable.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 70.

Division No, 469.]
AYES
[9.34 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Dobson, Ray


Armstrong, Ernest
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Ashley, Jack
Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Astor, John
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Cant, R, B.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Barnes, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cattle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ennals, David


Bessell, Peter
Coe, Denis
Ensor, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Binns, John
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, james(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strettord)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dell, Edmund
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)




Forrester, John
Luard, Evan
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fowler, Gerry
Lubbock, Eric
Ryan, John


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gardner, Tony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacColl, James
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hamling, William
Marquand, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy
Snow, Julian


Haseldine, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Howie, W.
Molloy, William
Taverne, Dick


Huckfield, L.
Murray, Albert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Neave, Airey
Urwin, T. W.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Newens, Stan
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P,cras,S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oram, Albert E.
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Whitaker, Ben


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Harn.S.)
Pardoe, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Kirk, Peter
Probert, Arthur
Yates, Victor


Lee, John (Reading)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lomas, Kenneth
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. John Hunt and


Loughlin, Charles
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Mr. Christopher Price.


Loveys, W. H.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)



NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, w. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Crowder, F. P.
Macdonald, A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McGuire, Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McNamara, J. Kevin
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wall, Patrick


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


English, Michael
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Galpern, Sir Myer
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Oakes, Gordon



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Harold Gurden.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Mr. F. V. Corfield: On a point of order. We have sat through a long period of the Report stage and it is extremely difficult to remember what is in the Bill and what is out. Would it not be much more practical if we adjourned now and saw a reprint of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

9.43 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this hour of the morning I am not capable of making a long speech. I shall, therefore, speak in fairly general terms about the Bill as it now stands.
This has been a very long struggle for many people, both inside and outside the House, although it has been a relatively short struggle for me, as I have been associated with it for only the past year—even though it now appears to me to be about 10 years of my life. But no worthwhile social reform is ever passed through the House easily. The fact that it has been a hard-fought reform has made it


none the worse, and probably both its opponents and supporters would recognise that in our deliberations on the Bill a great deal has been achieved in the arguments to and fro, here and in Committee.
It is appropriate that I should thank those who have supported the Measure, not only through this past night but on r. previous night; those who sat on the Committee; and those who helped to organise, without the benefit of experience of the Government Chief Whip, to get people to vote for the Measure. I personally owe a great deal of gratitude to them.
I should also like to pay tribute to the opponents of the Bill. A great many harsh things have been said, as naturally happens on a Bill such as this, which arouses such deep feelings and emotions. Probably many of us on both sides of the argument have said things which, in a week's time in the cool light of day, we would possibly like to think we had never said.
On the whole I would like to say to the opponents that as a member of—at the moment—a minority party in the House I am, more than anyone, perhaps, sensitive to the rights of minorities to advance their points of view and to try to make their points of view prevail against all difficulties. That the minority have done, and, I think, with great distinction to themselves.
If I may just make a particular reference to the views of the Roman Catholic Church, and, in particular, to the views of the Roman Catholic Members in this House, I do this not because I am one of those who believe that the opposition to the Bill is centred on Roman Catholicism, because, of course, it is not, but because, as a Christian, and one who is associated with the ecumenical movement in religious politics, I recognise that this whole subject of abortion is one which has caused very great difficulties and disquiet to those who hold the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
I recognise that. Indeed, I would go further and say that the only logical and consistent case which can be advanced against the Bill is one which stems from the basic conceptions of the Roman Catholic point of view. Therefore, I would I like to say to those hon. Members who hold that point of view that we who

are pressing the Bill respect it very much indeed.
In deciding whether or not to give the Bill its Third Reading I suggest that our criterion should be: is the Bill what a reasonable man would regard as a reasonable statement of the law on this difficult question of abortion? It is my submission that it is.
It sets out for the first time in this country firm ground on which it may be lawful for termination to be carried out. By Clause 1(1,a) the grounds are those which have already been accepted by many members of the medical profession and put into practice by some of them, but for the first time they are told clearly what may be lawful.
In Clause 1(1,b), an abnormality in the foetus, which, as I have said before, I personally find ethically the most difficult of all the parts of the Bill, we state for the first time a new point of law. I think that it is significant for those who are or have been troubled by that paragraph. I think that they should stop to note that the British Medical Association's report before the war to the interdepartmental committee of inquiry contained no such recommendation as is now in that paragraph (b), but that its report of a year or so ago did, in fact, contain precisely that recommendation in Clause 1(1,b), for the good reason that, with the development and advance of medical science, a body of professional men and women came to the conclusion that it is right that such a provision should be there included. If we voted down the Bill we would be going back to the system where we had no definition at all of precisely what are the grounds on which a termination may be carried out.
Secondly, the Bill introduces safeguards for the first time into our law and which do not exist at present. We require two opinions. This is, perhaps, not an important point, because in practice, of course, this is regularly done in any case. Secondly, we require for the first time that abortion be carried out in particular places, either in a National Health Service hospital or a place approved for the purpose by the Minister of Health. Thirdly, for the first time, we require notification of every termination of pregnancy, so that not only can we see—and evidence be found—whether racketeering


is going on, but we can for the first time obtain realistic and valuable information on this subject. Again, if the Bill is voted down all these three safeguards in the provisions of the Bill will be lost to the law of our land.
I think that I should say a word about the nature of the abortion operation itself. This is the point on which emotions are most easily aroused. I think it true to say that the bulk of the illegal abortions, the back-street abortions, which go on today occur not at the stage where the foetus is fairly advanced, for the obvious reason that at that stage the operation requires an abdominal operation, and it is not carried out in the back streets, but at an early stage.
It is this that we are trying to check. It is this we are trying to bring within the purview of the medical profession. I have with me an early seven weeks old embryo, given to me by an official of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Members who know little of the subject should have a look at it, because it is only half an inch long. To talk of it in terms of crying or wriggling, or anything like that, at the early stage of pregnancy when these abortions are carried out, is quite misleading, and, I think, over-emotionalising.
This is what we are weighing against the life and welfare of the mother and family, when talking about abortion in most cases. Of course, there will still be cases where, because of grave circumstances, a doctor may decide that at a later stage of pregnancy, when abortion is more repugnant, it should be carried out, but the law has not changed because it happens at present.
Anyone advancing the Bill has in no way been advocating abortion. I must make this clear, because I detect, from some of the mountain of correspondence I have received over the last year, a belief that some who advance the Bill think that abortion should be encouraged and more widely practised. I must say that this is not so and that the Bill does not relieve society of the obligation to improve social conditions or of attacking the question whether our adoption laws are as effective and correctly organised as they should be, and, certainly, it does not relieve society of the obligation of considering whether there

are adequate facilities for family planning, or from appealing to some form of responsible moral code.
So often this is not understood by those outside the House who believe that those advancing the Bill have done so on quite spurious grounds, that we are advocating abortion as something desirable and to be encouraged. The main case for the Bill and for clarifying the law rests on the grounds that we are hopeful that the scourge of criminal abortion will be substantially removed from our land. We do not say it will entirely be wiped out. That would be a pipe-dream. It has not been entirely wiped out in any country.
We think that the Bill will succeed in this effort because I am told by gynaecologists that already, before the Bill is passed, there is a change of climate and practice, where more patients are being seen by general practitioners and more are being referred to specialists by general practitioners. That is happening under the present law.
One example has been given to me by a general practitioner of a girl, unmarried, and, therefore, one of the minority of cases of illegal abortion, who came to him about two or three months ago, said she was pregnant, and that she wished to have her pregnancy terminated. He told her that he did not think she had grounds. She said to him that she had come because of the Bill. "I believe that I have grounds under that", she said. He told her, "I happen to know the sponsor of the Bill. I have looked at the Bill and do not think that under it you have grounds." He talked to the girl and put her in touch with people who could help her. Her pregnancy is now going through in the normal way. It does not follow that because women desire termination it will automatically be carried out. If we can manage to get a girl such as that into the hands of the medical profession, the Bill is succeeding in its objective.
If the Bill had not been before Parliament, if the girl had thought that what she sought was something illegal and was not to be talked about, and had, therefore, not gone to the doctor, she might have had the baby after nine months of great anxiety; she might, as often happens, have taken some substance, or have inflicted some injury upon herself which might have aborted the baby, admitted


her to hospital to take up time in a gynaecological bed, and, possibly, have left her with a permanent injury.
Worse than that, she might have been driven to the desperate situation of committing suicide. Worst of all, she might have been among the statistics of the average of 30 women a year who die of operations at criminal hands. None of those things happened, because she thought she would get a good hearing from that doctor. If the Bill encourages that kind of climate, it will have been worthwhile.
I draw the attention of the House—and I am surprised that it was not mentioned at any time during the night—to the fact that at the annual meeting of the British Medical Association, only last week, a motion was brought forward from Birmingham—from the area of the country that has been most opposed to the Bill—that the Measure should be opposed, and that a Royal Commission should be appointed to look into the whole matter. That motion was discussed by a full meeting of the B.M.A., and was overwhelmingly rejected by about 300 votes to 100 votes.
The chairman, in his concluding remarks, while not dotting every "i" and crossing every "t", said that it would be irresponsible of the British Medical Association to accept the suggestion of shelving the whole matter and having yet another inquiry. If that would be irresponsible for the British Medical Association, how much more irresponsible would it be for Parliament at this stage to go back on its conclusions reached so far?
Last week, the Economist, looking forward to the possible passing of the Bill after this night's long sitting, said that if it were to be passed Parliament would have done something of value this Session. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to give the Bill its Third reading.

9.57 a.m.

Mr. Sharples: The House has been discussing the Bill for almost 12 hours so far, and those who have been here through the night will, I am sure, agree that there have been good debates throughout and that the standard has been high. Those who listened to our discussion of the conscience Clause will

realise the complexity of some of the issues we had to consider. I know that it is always said that we should have the Law Officers present to advise on matters of this kind, but I think that in that last debate, particularly, it was a pity that one of them was not present in the Chamber, though he was, in fact, in the building.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) must be congratulated on the way in which, although he was criticised, at times both by his supporters and by his opponents, he has brought a Bill of such complexity to this stage. It is probable that within a very short time he will be able to have something to his credit which very few of us will have during our time in Parliament, and that is a major piece of legislation on the Statute Book. The hon. Member has throughout taken immense trouble to answer all the points that were put to him, and I know that the whole House will be grateful to him for that.
At the same time, it is quite intolerable that the House of Commons should have been called upon to debate a complicated piece of social legislation like this throughout the night and the early hours of the morning. I think it intolerable that the Leader of the House, who is responsible for putting us in this position, should saunter in, having had his breakfast, at this time of the morning. I say that because in my personal capacity I shall vote in favour of the Bill, but I none the less criticise very strongly indeed the way in which the business of the House has been conducted and the way in which we have been asked to consider the Bill.
There is to be a free vote on both sides of the House. Although I shall vote in favour of the Bill, I certainly would not attempt to influence any of my hon. Friends either way in the decision they reach. All I say is, now that we have considered the Bill for a very long time indeed, I believe that the House should come to an early decision on the matter.

10.2 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: If the lives of the citizens of our country came not from the generosity of God, but from the hand of the State or Sovereign,


this House would never have found a place in the history of our nation. Our constitution, our laws and our history stand testament to this belief.
Today we are assembled to debate what was described in another place as enlightened legislation. I regret the light and oppose the Bill as outlined. This abortion Bill is about morals and most certainly about life, human life, life which under the most favourable circumstances is transient indeed, about life which on this earth is not an enduring gift or free entitlement, about life which is a gift to each of us bestowed at a price to each of us. The Preston poet, Francis Thompson, had regard to that price when he wrote the verse:
Nothing begins and nothing ends,
That is not paid with moan;
For we are born in other's pain
And perish in our own.
As I have pondered this Bill, two considerations have impressed themselves on me. The first is that my objection to this Bill and the point of differentiation from the supporters of the Bill is not that one side has deep compassion and the other is fettered by religious theory. The difference lies in the esteem given to the human foetus, the value accredited to what, under any consideration, is a potential human life.
My second consideration is that if this Bill becomes the law of our country—and it appears that it will—the logical conclusion and the practical application will be that any pregnant woman should be entitled to abortion on demand. I do not believe—and I assure the House that it is not a callous disbelief—that risk to the human life or physical injury to the health of the woman—these are very serious things, it is the risk ever present in childbirth—justifies the abortion of a potential human life, however lightly the hon. Member appears to judge the position. Still less do I believe that the anguish and state of mind of the woman which could be attributed to a continuing pregnancy would be justifiable grounds for any two medical practitioners lawfully to approve the termination of the life of the child within the womb. Indeed, the first Clause of the Bill lays down that it would be sufficient ground for procuring an abortion if it was proved that mental anxiety for the mother would

ensue. This proviso is the Open Sesame to any requirement in this matter as embodied in this Bill.
Those supporting the Bill say that legalised abortion is a product of the humanitarian egality of our age; they suggest that the choice is between the old order and the new, but I claim with all the sincerity of which I am capable the right to ask hon. Members to face this challenge as between life sanctified by God or legalised infanticide. Clause 1(a) asks us to agree that it should be lawful to destroy a potential life on the ground that a continued pregnancy
… would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman …
and then,
… or the future well-being of herself and/or the child or her other children",
In other words, carte blanche from the word "go". Destroy, even although life has not begun to function. Eligibility for abortion is no longer limited even to this. Well-being or environment have to be considered. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Hon. Members can say "No" but they must not treat this proposition as lightly as they tend to do. Their action will have to be defended in the country, and that, they will find, will not be easy. I maintain that what has been agreed to by the House is the ticket for the 80 per cent. of abortion seekers, the married women whose supreme concern is the strain that an additional child will impose. The effect of the Bill will be that, if they are determined enough, they will find grounds for abortion as often as they wish.
The effect of the Bill on the medical profession will be to place on many an unbearable strain of conscience. I could dilate on that ad infinitum, but I will resist the temptation. The strain on highly skilled and dedicated members of the medical profession appears to have been the last consideration. It was brushed aside very quickly by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). As every hon. Member is only too painfully aware, in each of our constituencies we are visited week by week by people who are enduring very serious illnesses and who are waiting for long periods to obtain hospital treatment. One cannot contract out


of life or avoid death. There are circumstances, some of them embodied in the Bill, which indubitably involve a trail of human misery and sorrow. In my opinion, none of these sorrows can ever justify the destruction of potential life. There are some instances in the Bill which arouse tremendous sympathy, but it must be conceded that fortunately these cases are not comparatively frequent. Those of us in local government whose job it has been through the years to study the vital statistics know that the health of mothers is improving rapidly and that child mortality rates are decreasing rapidly.
Not long ago I voted with pride, as did the vast majority of hon. Members, against judicial murder. Basically we voted that way because we believed it wrong to take a human life, irrespective of the measure of accountability involved. Is the House now about to turn turtle by accepting as a general principle that it would be right to destroy a potential human life? How can the nation which has abolished the legal killing of murderers and ended judicial murder sanction the killing of an unborn child?
I am certain that this momentous question is not being posed exclusively by people in my constituency. This is a question on the lips of mothers, fathers, grandparents, people in all walks of life—spinsters and bachelors as well. Many of the letters which I have received—I am sure that I am no different from any other hon. Member in this respect—have come from unmarried people. People everywhere are proclaiming that Parliament is not God and does not have dominion over life and death. I implore Parliament to vote on Third Reading with its eyes wide open, remembering that mere man must never be so ill-advised as to trespass on the domain of the Creator. Unless any single one of us is prepared to say with truth, "I wish I had never been born", it is wrong to deny life to a potential human being.
Little more than a year ago, not far from my own constituency, a young woman aged 20, a qualified nurse, died. The qualified doctor who aborted her in hospital committed suicide. His friend, also a qualified doctor, who was responsible for the girl's condition, was imprisoned. People were horrified by the ghastliness of that situation. Would it

not have been better if that little baby had been allowed to come into the world? I pose the pertinent question, "For God's sake do not let us dodge any issue. Tomorrow may be too late".
Members of Parliament have a responsibility. I believe that they are accepting that responsibility and looking at this question very conscientiously indeed. But we have a very heavy burden of responsibility to carry. How do we abolish the back-street abortionist—by substituting front-street killing of the innocent unborn on the National Health? Is that the way we are to do it? Herod's was no greater crime than this.
Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of God.
That means that each and every one of us must share the trials and tribulations which come our way in an effort to see that little children do not meet this inexorable fate.
Will this Mother of Parliaments respond to this call? In a long life in the political arena, I have held that the words "neutral" and "impartial" were benign, carrying their true meaning. Those words now stink in the nostrils of many hon. Members. From the very inception of this Measure there has been absolute partisanship. The early words of the Home Secretary now have a very hollow ring indeed. Why the machinery of Parliament has been set in motion, at the behest of one little Member of the smallest possible minority party, passes my comprehension.
I have been in politics, a member of the Labour Party, for 44 years and have never had the word "unworthy" used to me. I hope that I will go to my grave without that word ever having been said to me. I have never been an unworthy member of the Labour movement and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I appreciate how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels on this subject and I have allowed him some latitude. However, he is now right outside the scope of the Third Reading debate and must concern himself with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Mahon: I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I


must calm down. I am rather over-emotional about this. I assure the House that I have never looked on the Bill through the eyes of a Catholic. I oppose it because I believe it to be against the natural law and to be terribly cruel to little children who should be born. It has puzzled me that there should have been so much support in Parliament for the Measure. I never anticipated that, after three years in office, the Labour Party would allow such a Bill to come forward. Not in my wildest imagination could I have imagined such a thing happening.

Mr. Roebuck: Does my hon. Friend feel that the Government should act as back-street abortionists for Private Members' Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman replied to that question, he would be taken even further out of order.

Mr. Mahon: I fervently believe that there is no glory for a living soul in the Bill. People might think that I am being churlish in not congratulating the young hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles who, on very different standards, might consider that he has an achievement to his credit. I suppose that it is a good achievement for a young hon. Member, but in all sincerity I do not consider that he is worth my congratulations. He is deserving of my sympathy and, in the years that lie ahead, he may himself come around to this way of thinking. I do not wish him ill. I wish him luck, success and happiness in his political future. He is a very able young man, but on this occasion he has traversed the wrong path.
As I say, there is no glory for a living soul in the Measure, and posterity's judgment will be censorious. Indeed, future generations will be appalled that in our own day Parliament allowed its splendid traditions to be sullied and tarnished, even by giving consideration to such a Measure.
In the whole of my public life I have never felt so badly about anything as I do about the Bill. As a human being who has lived and fought to protect all that is best in mankind, and as one who respects the rights and dignity of all people, I protest vehemently against the

Bill and all that it contains. Life is the most precious gift on earth. Man can take it away, but he cannot give it back again. Life is man's most precious possession, since if he loses it, he loses everything. He therefore has a right to life, and a right which no one make take away from him. Man disregards this most fundamental right at his peril.
Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind as to how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applied to the child. That representative body of all civilised peoples was proud to declare that mankind owes to the child the best that it has to give. Without equivocation, it is stated that by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, the child needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth. The Bill makes a mockery of the Declaration of Human Rights and opens the door wide for an increasing disregard for the rights of the child.
It has never been shown that the life in the embryo stage is not alive—I thought that it was unworthy of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles but I said that I will not chastise him, and I will not; I will skirt round that little note of denigration. It has never been shown that the child in the embryo stage is not alive, not human and not a unique individual organism. It has never been shown that at some time in advanced pregnancy the child suddenly becomes alive. The child, whether born or unborn, is not the chattel of its mother to be treated or disposed of according to her wishes or whims. This would be a travesty of motherhood. She is the first and greatest guardian of her child's safety and right.
It has always been the glory of a mother to defend her child, in the womb or outside it, against any aggression. There are two equal rights: the right of the mother and the right of the child. The child in the womb cannot, and must not, be deprived of its life because either his mother or society does not want him. Let me remind Parliament, if with the smug complacency of Englishmen it is anxious to forget, that we have had a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who were the illegitimate children of servant girls.
It is true that a mother, or anyone else for that matter, has the right to have


done to her whatever is necessary for her health, but not if it involves the direct killing of another person, whether unborn, child or adult. What is supreme cannot be taken away because of what is partial. If a mother is psychologically disturbed through other factors, whatever the cause, the unborn child is not responsible and cannot be punished as though he were.
No one suggests today that, terrible crime though it be, the person responsible for raping a woman or child should be put to death, yet that is precisely what is being done to the innocent unborn child who is by no means responsible. If our conscience is not outraged at the thought of this being done, what in heaven's name has happened to us?
Back-street abortionists are rightly abhorred, but whatever the harm done to the woman the first and greatest injustice is the taking of the unborn child's life. Tie injustice is by no means abated by having the abortion carried out by doctors in the best aseptic conditions.
It is indeed our sacred duty to maintain the dignity and the rights of mothers, but however deep our emotions at the sight of afflicted mothers, we will neglect at our peril the rights of the child. Nor must it be forgotten that this legislation will brutalise our country in the eyes of the world. The age-old argument that a mother's life is more important than a life before birth is no argument for the destruction of the child. The same argument would apply to the killing of the defectively born. What a hue and cry there would be, and rightly so, had it been suggested that the thalidomide babies should not have been allowed life.
The more one looks at the Bill and studies it closely, the more one is appalled by it. It is proposed to allow abortion when there is a substantial risk that the child will be born suffering from physical or mental abnormalities that would be a serious handicap. But how is one to know that a child will be born like that? Certainly not by an examination of the foetus can anyone diagnose that a child wilt be born blind or deaf. It can be only a mere guess in particular cases.
It is argued that if a mother has a particular disease in pregnancy—rubella, for example—there is a chance that her child will be deformed in some way.

Others say that deformities would be minor. But the real tragedy would be that a large number of perfectly normal unmaimed human lives are to be sacrificed for the sake of one who would be born with some physical deformity. What kind of morality is that?
Nor can the destruction of human life for social reasons be defended. The Bill's provisions said that an abortion should be allowed when the woman's well-being or that of her other children is involved. Who is to decide on this? Is it the pregnant woman who is to decide on the destruction of her own child, or is it to be the doctor? How logical it is to reason that the sane, sensible and moral way of solving these great difficulties is not by killing but by bettering social conditions, and the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to concede that point.
Rooted objection to the Bill by so many hon. Members is not based merely or chiefly on moral grounds. It is based, first, on human rights and the right of every individual to his life unless in some way he has forfeited that right by his own actions. Second, it is based on social and economic grounds. The accent should be on medical research and the provision of greater social facilities.
The presentation of this Bill is in itself an indictment of Parliament. The acceptance of and support for the Bill is tantamount to a confession of failure to deal with the social maladies afflicting our country. I am rather sad to be a Member of a Parliament which is giving the Bill a Third Reading.

10.28 a.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: As one who did not serve on the Standing Committee, but who has been present throughout both the all-night sittings and has not spoken previously during this one, I have been a supporter of the Bill in principle from the outset.
I want to be as constructive as possible. There is one outstanding point which I should like the House to consider, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), while joining in the congratulations which have been given to him.
In my carefully considered opinion, Clause 1 is impossible in its present form of words. I have discussed it with those who are much better equipped than I to speak about the conduct of trials and instructions to juries.
The language of Clause 1 is such that I do not believe any judge ought to be asked to try to explain it. There are three points that I want to mention in that connection. He would have to deal, first of all, with the word "risk". As I understand the sponsor, according to his view a judge should say that it does not mean just any risk, that it means a serious risk or danger. I think that that is impossible. Any judge would say, "Parliament has said 'a risk'. If I have evidence that there is any risk, that is an end of the matter." He then passes on to the word "substantial".
A substantial risk must be a different thing from a risk that is not substantial. That has to be explained to the jury. Then we have the factor of "other children". No one has been able to explain how those children are supposed to be affected. We just do not know. I think that I have said sufficient to show why I, at any rate, think that Clause 1 in its present form simply will not do.
I want to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles who, after all, is responsible for the Bill. The Government have adopted the attitude of what is called, I think, by the Leader of the House "neutral support"—which is a very remarkable thing; and only the Leader of the House would have been capable of thinking of that.
I also appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. I thought it right to give him notice that I intended to refer to him and to the unfortunate fact of his absence when we were discussing those matters. However, I should like to recognise that he has come here and has sat here for a long time waiting to deal with the matter. I therefore feel that I can appeal to him without his feeling in any way that I have imposed anything upon him.
I am using the words of the present Prime Minister in defining the duties of

the Attorney-General. This is what the present Prime Minister said on 27th May, 1963:
The Attorney-General, whoever he may be, is not only the legal adviser to the Crown and to the Government. He is also a servant of this House. It is, from time to time, his duty to advise the House on legal matters. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 993.]
May I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We are in trouble over two things. The one matter with which I am most concerned is this question of Clause 1. I believe, if I may respectfully say so, that it is his duty to co-operate with the sponsor to find language that will be acceptable. As I have said elsewhere—and I am sure it is right—I am quite certain that when the Bill goes to another place, as I think it will, it will undoubtedly be subjected to great scrutiny there. I do not believe that Clause 1 will be acceptable in its present form. Therefore, I urge that an effort be made to produce an acceptable version of Clause 1 for presentation in another place.
I am certain that it ought to be fully recognised that during the very many hours we have been here since yesterday—if it was yesterday—no one could say that there has been any filibustering. Apart from anything else, there has been very good temper, and good spirits, and even once or twice we have had quite a good laugh—unintentionally, I think, on one occasion. That is a good thing.
May I humbly say that I appreciate what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles is thinking. One of the very first things that I did when I came into the House was to draw a leading place in the Ballot and embark on the presentation of a Private Member's Bill which went on to the Statute Book. At one time it was certainly not only moribund, but about to pass out. I got into touch with the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, and he gave me his co-operation. We put on to the Statute rook an Act which involved the repeal or amendment of no fewer than 35 statutes of the Realm. That could not have been done except by that process of cooperation and, of course, the use of Parliamentary draftsmen—not only that,


but an agreement on my part to submit to whatever conditions and requirements were put upon me by the Attorney-General.
If that same course is taken in relation to the present Bill, I would see no reason at all why it should have difficulty. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us at the end of this Third Reading debate that he is prepared to co-operate with an open mind with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taking into account the matters we have discussed and which I have tried to put forward, and thus produce an acceptable result.

10.37 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: As a Roman Catholic, I naturally feel strongly on the question of conscience, morality and theology. I know that other hon. Members feel equally strongly because of their humanist beliefs. I am not going to argue the case from this point of view. It is something we could debate for many days.
I approach this Bill with a natural prejudice against it, and I confess to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that this is the fact. But I must confess that, having sat here for two nights and having read the reports of some of the Committee stage of the Bill, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that the main objective of the Bill will not, I fear, be achieved.
The objective of the Bill is to widen and make more humane and better the present laws regarding abortion which, it is perfectly true, are unfair to many and offer to the rich advantages which are not available to the poor. This is perfectly true. Nevertheless, the intention of the Bill is to have control over how far the obligation in relation to abortion should extend. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has shown, Clause 1 is inexplicable to a court of law. Under no circumstances could a judgment even be given against an abortioner. The Bill makes so wide the area of decision as to what constitutes harm to future or unborn children, as to the question of the health of the women concerned and the social conditions. Here is a field which is totally subjective. As has been suggested, the Swedish system offers far more control than does this Bill.
I believe that in a few years we shall find that the criteria which have been laid down by the supporters of the Bill in an effort to control the practice of abortion will have disappeared and we shall have abortion on demand in this country. I cannot believe that many hon. Members want that. If there were a straight vote now on the question of abortion on demand, there would not be a majority in favour of it. But that is what will happen as inevitably as anything is inevitable in this life, because within the Bill are the seeds of that destruction.
It is a sad commentary—sad, perhaps, but accurate—that after 1,000 days of this Government there has been no extension of freedom save to the bugger and the abortioner.

Hon. Members: Shame.

10.41 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) concluded as he did, particularly in view of my recollection that he was an extremely loyal and determined supporter of the Sexual Offences Bill throughout all its stages. I am sorry that he spoiled his speech in that way.
This Bill began its laborious progress through the House as long ago as 22nd July last year, when I spoke, as did many hon. Members, on its Second Reading. There can be fairly general agreement that during this period it has been exhaustively debated both in Committee and on Report, and now on Third Reading. On Second Reading, I said something about the Government's attitude of neutrality, and on that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) has made a comment. I have great respect for the deeply held and sincere views of my hon. Friend, and I hope that he will extend his respect to those who hold different views on this matter.
I understand that, during one of my fairly brief absences from the debate, my hon. Friend said that some remark of mine about neutrality on that occasion had a somewhat hollow ring. What I said, and what I repeat now, is that the Government collectively have a neutral attitude to the Bill and believe that it is


for the House to decide whether it wishes to have a Bill on abortion, but I myself believed in July last year, and still believe, that the abortion law as it exists at present is uncertain, archaic and harsh and it is extremely desirable that it be reformed on all those grounds.
For that reason, I made clear that I would vote for the Second Reading. Equally, I shall vote today, nearly a year later, for the Third Reading. But for the Government as a whole, every vote has been an unwhipped vote, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have gone into a Lobby different from that into which I have gone throughout the various stages of the Bill.
The Government have made time available, and there have been criticisms of this, somewhat contradictory criticisms, either that they have made time available at all or that they have not made enough time available at entirely other times of day.
I take, first, the complaint that the Government have made time available. The Bill went through Committee, a difficult and laborious Committee stage, and it then came to the Floor of the House on Report on 2nd June, on an ordinary Private Member's day. On that day there was, I believe, an almost unprecedented turnout of hon. Members on both sides of the House and both sides of the controversy to express their views and cast their votes. This, I believe, mirrored the great attention and interest in the issue in the country. I cannot believe that hon. Members who have respect for Parliament, whatever view they may take about the merits of the Bill, would say that, on an issue in which there is that degree of interest in the House and outside, it would be right for the House to frustrate itself for want of time from making a decision upon it.

Mr. John Hall: I appreciate what the Home Secretary says, but, in those circumstances, if he thinks that the Bill is so important—as, indeed, I admit it is—would it not have been better to have had time for discussion during the day and not through the watches of the night?

Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I shall come to precisely that question. It was

raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, in a speech with which otherwise I agreed.
I come now to that question, that is, whether the Government, having decided to give time, should have given time during the day. The deeply felt opposition to the Bill has led hon. Members opposing it to oppose it very strongly and by practically all available Parliamentary means. Does any hon. Member who sat not through this last night but through the night sitting a fortnight ago believe that ordinary time would have settled the fate of the Bill? Does anyone believe that six Fridays or three ordinary days from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock would have settled the fate of the Bill? I make no complaint. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that those with strong views are entitled to exploit Parliamentary procedure in order to give expression to those strong views. But a majority who hold equally strong views must also be able to use the devices of Parliamentary procedure in order to reach a decision, and, on the basis of what happened on that previous night, it is clear that no conceivable available amount of Government time during the day would have enabled this Bill to go through.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Mr. Gibson-Watt rose—

Mr. Jenkins: No, not just now. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam meant that had a Government of which he would be a supporter been in power they would have given that limitless time. I doubt very much that they would have given any time at all for this social issue to be resolved.
What has been the difference between the debate this last night and the debate a fortnight ago? A fortnight ago, we had a debate during which, for example, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) spoke against his own Amendment, whether realising that he was doing so or not, when there was difficulty about hon. Members coming out of the Lobbies with reasonable speed, when even the most minute drafting Amendment was debated with equal


length and weight as Amendments of great importance and when the House refused to take two Amendments together, thus, in effect, making a nonsense of its own procedures, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed out.
It was a very different story a fortnight ago from the reasonable and constructive debates which we have had during this past night. Why has there been a different story?—not, I believe, because the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) had a sudden conversion during his excursion to Turkey—I think it was—during the week. It was for no reason of that kind. The debate has been different because, on this occasion, it was open-ended, and the House knew that the debate would proceed until a decision had been taken. Had the House not been put in that position, I do not believe that the opposition, about which I do not complain provided that hon. Members do not complain about the way in which time has been made available, would ever have allowed a decision to be reached.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the point in his speech at which I tried to intervene. He spoke of using the devices of the House. I put this simple question: is it not a fact that the Government are now using the devices of the House over this Bill?

Mr. Jenkins: It may be the long hours we have been sitting—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has been here as long as I have—but I do not see what new point that adds to the argument.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Sir Knox Cunningham rose—

Mr. Jenkins: No.

Mr. C. Pannell: It has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

Sir Knox Cunningham: It has very much to do with the country, including the right hon. Member for Leeds, West.

Mr. Jenkins: What I say on that point, if it is any advantage to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), is that the Government have taken the view that a decision should be reached on this Bill, whatever the decision may be. I do not believe that any hon. Member in his heart believes that a decision

could have been arrived at in a different way and with a timetable different from that in which it has been arrived at. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that.
I should like to add my congratulations to those that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has received upon his work in endeavouring to get the Bill on the Statute Book. It has been an extremely hard, long and laborious task. There must have been many occasions in the past year when he half regretted that he had ever taken it upon himself. It has been a difficult Bill, and he must have been under great pressure. I think that the hon. Member, as a young Member of the House with a marginal constituency and without a great party machine behind him, has shown exceptional courage in carrying on with the Bill in these circumstances. I congratulate him most warmly on the results which have been achieved. I should also like to congratulate those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sat long, but sat with some enthusiasm, to get the Bill on the Statute Book.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, as well as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for the great help that they have given the House and the clear expositions that they gave in Committee and on Report. I believe that by carrying the Bill through—I hope that if the House is so minded it will give it a Third Reading by a decisive majority—we are making a practical contribution towards a solution—there is no perfect solution—of an extremely difficult social problem.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said that Clause 1 was unworkable. The Attorney-General has certain duties about advising the House, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, and I am sure that any advice that my right hon. and learned Friend gave would be extremely clear and lucid, but I am bound to say that I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman exaggerates the extent to which some of the advice that the House has received from some Law Officers in the past necessarily clarified the issue. At the same time I might


remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that it is I, not my right hon. and learned Friend, with all his great knowledge and responsibility, who is responsible for the state of the criminal law, but while I certainly take the view that one can have varying views about the desirability of the Bill and the desirability of Clause 1, I do not take the view, on all the advice available to me, not least that of my right hon. and learned Friend, that Clause I as it stands is unworkable. I think it is workable.
It is for the House to decide whether or not it wishes Clause 1 and the rest of the Bill. I have no doubt that the House will come to a decision soon and that by doing so it will put at any rate partly to rest a difficult social controversy on which it would have been a great pity for Parliament if Parliament had dodged the issue at this stage.

10.54 a.m.

Mr. Deedes: I want to say something in reply to the Home Secretary, but, first, I should like, on personal grounds, warmly to congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I do so as one who reluctantly will vote against the Bill. Having sat through most of the proceedings, I pay tribute to his industry and fairness. None of us, whatever view we may have taken about the Bill, can have any complaint about the way in which he has played his part in it.
Whether this has been the right way to handle the Measure is something which some of us will feel doubt about. I wish I had more confidence and shared the Home Secretary's confidence about Clause 1. I come much more closely to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). I am surprised at the confidence of the Home Secretary that Clause 1 is workable. Indeed, I think that very few hon. Members could at the moment say what the position is under Clause 1. I hope that the Home Secretary is right, but after all the proceedings on the Bill I have very strong reservations about it. For that reason, I also share the view that the Third Reading without a reprint of the Bill is very difficult.
Those of us who occupy the middle ground on the Bill can judge the result only by the criteria which we have tried to hold in our minds from the start. I speak, first, for those of us who have wished to see a change in the law and have accepted that there were abuses and wished to see them removed. I speak, secondly, for those who believe that the grounds should be medical grounds and that what is required of doctors is a medical judgment and that all other considerations which might be brought into the Bill should be within medical criteria I speak, thirdly, for those who have felt that doctors, and nurses, too, should be adequately protected where, on grounds of their own conscience, they found themselves unable to implement the proposals in the Bill.
That is, broadly, the ground on which some of us have stood. Now we have to ask ourselves whether the Bill satisfies those criteria by which, as far as we could, we have marched during these proceedings. I do not feel happy about that. One of the principal reasons for feeling unhappy has been a shortcoming on the Government's side.
Here, I want to reply to something that the Home Secretary said. We are all speaking for ourselves now. I make no complaint about the timing. The Home Secretary is probably right. The only way to get the Bill through was to go on indefinitely. I had no objection to working through the night. Judging by some of the speeches which we have heard, I do not think that the mental process has been much impaired by an all-night sitting. We had a very good speech with cogent arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) at six o'clock this morning. I think that we can exaggerate the amount of damage that we do to legislation by sitting late or early.
My complaint lies not with what the Government have done with time, but with what the Government have not done with aid to those of us who have been trying to make a success of the Bill. I add immediately my tribute to the tribute which the Home Secretary paid to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, and the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, but I ask the


Home Secretary to accept that it has not been possible occasionally when there his been a conflict of advice from two Departments—the Home Office and the Ministry of Health; this cannot be denied—without the advice of the Law Officers—whatever store we set by that—for those of us who have been struggling to produce a result which will make sense and good law to do the best that we should have been able to do. In this sense, I believe that the Government are guilty of a sin of omission. If the Government will the Bill—they are entitled to do so—and they give it time, it seems to me that they owe the Bill some responsibility, and this they have not shown.
This stage has enabled my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey to make a very fair speech in relation to Clause 1 and to say that when the Bill comes to be considered again in another place the Law Officers and other experts are bound to find the gravest shortcomings in the drafting not only of Clause 1, but of Clause 4. Without the presence of right hon. and learned Gentlemen our difficulties there were not resolved. The result is that that Clause goes on to another place with very grave doubts still hanging over it. There are limits to what Law Officers can do in clarifying matters. One must not ask for the impossible, but I still maintain that the Government have not lived up to their responsibilities in the light of what they have asked the rest of the House to do.
I think that it will be for the Government, also, to search their conscience about this. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has now discharged his responsibilities. He has done his work; he has got his Bill through this House. I say all praise to him on personal grounds for what he has done. But the implementation of the Bill, the administrative side, will now lie fairly and squarely on the Government, and I think that they will find themselves in much greater difficulty than they now suppose. It is only right that for those of us who have sought to hold tenaciously to the best aspects of the Bill on the grounds on which I am speaking that I should, in conclusion, strike that very strong note of reservation.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I have sat throughout 12 or 13 sittings of the Standing Committee, speaking only twice, and I have sat throughout the whole of this Report stage without speaking at all except on an unusual sort of point of order intervention. However, I should like to say a few words on Third Reading, because so many hon. Members have represented themselves as the perfect moderates, with extremists on either side.
It is important that I should put forward a point of view which has not been put as strongly during the Report stage as it should have been, but, first, I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I have worked closely with him and I have a great deal of admiration for him.
My first point is that many hon. Members have predicted a sort of headlong, gathering rush to abortion on demand when the Bill is passed. I should like to predict that for several years it will make very little difference. The ground on which this rush has been predicted has been the nature of Clause 1, but that is one of the least important Clauses from the point of view of the effect of the Bill. It is very important from the point of view of showing the will of Parliament and the sort of effect that the Bill should have, but the effect that it will have is not so important.
I wish that all hon. Members could have heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) during the Committee stage. From his experience as a solicitor who has had to prepare briefs for prosecutions, he put it that if we had put in Clause 1 everything that the most liberal-minded people wanted, or if we had simply put in one line very much like the case law which exists now, the number of abortions which took place up and down the country would be pretty well identical.
This is because the case law which we have, which many hon. Members have been representing as very narrow—certainly far narrower than the Bill—is interpreted in widely different ways by gynaecologists and doctors. In Aberdeen, there are hundreds of abortions a year; in Glasgow, there are four or five.


This is the spectrum which exists and which for a considerable time, until the medical profession is gradually educated to the change in public opinion, will continue to exist.
My second point is that the Bill has been represented as being a sort of mandatory Bill, forcing people to do things. It forces nobody to do anything. It is not even a permissive Bill allowing people to do things. It is a Bill which states that if a doctor, along with another doctor, performs an abortion under certain conditions, he will not be committing an offence. It is a Bill which says what is not unlawful. It forces neither doctors to abort, nor women to have abortions. That needs saying, because the contrary has not been so much explicitly stated, but has been implied in many speeches.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the Bill, if carried, will give the green light to many girls and women who would not otherwise want to have abortions? That is what worries me.

Mr. Price: This point has been put forward, but those who have put it forward underestimate the degree to which Parliament is behind public opinion on this issue. The reason that the Bill has come forward is not so much that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles wants a high place in the ballot, but because of the pressure of public opinion for it. I will have a word to say about that later.
My penultimate point is that many people have said that the Bill will lead to abortion on demand and shows, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) put it, that Parliament has somehow lost control. In my view, exactly the reverse is true. Because of the very strong safeguards which have been put into the Bill—the one on notification, but particularly the one on the licensing of private premises by the Ministry of Health—it is within the power of the Ministry of Health, according to how it frames the regulations for private premises, to regulate the amount of private abortion which goes on.
I should like to make a plea to the Ministry to consider the amount of legal

private abortion which goes on and not do anything in so regulating these premises that it drastically cuts down on legal private abortion and thereby encourages back street abortionists to spring up even more. As for losing control, there are far more safeguards now for abortion than have ever existed before.
Finally, I should like to develop the point about public opinion. The Bill will pass into law because of the demands of public opinion. When I have mixed with people both inside and outside the House who want the Bill, it has often occurred to me that it is not about abortion at all; it is part of the process of the emancipation of women which has been going on gradually over a very long period. The public opinion behind the Bill is millions of women up and down the country who are saying "We will no longer tolerate this system whereby men lay down, as though by right, the moral laws, particularly those relating to sexual behaviour, about how women should behave."
It is a movement of that kind that is behind this pressure of public opinion and I am very proud to be a newly-elected Member of a Parliament that has put the Bill through. I do not think that the Bill could have been put through except by a Parliament which had in 1966 such a large influx of younger Members of Parliament who are far more in accord with the real wishes of public opinion.

11.10 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have not reached the final stage of the Bill, because there are two Chambers in the House. The Bill has to go to the House of Lords and it may be amended there—we have had some indication from the sponsor of the Bill of the possibility of that—in which case it may well be back again. At any rate, we have had the final stage here for the time being. It does not do, therefore, to be too apocalyptic about this moment.
The Bill has been through a long, hard battle and that is as it should be, because the day that the House of Commons does not battle over convictions which are deeply and sincerely held, we should be alarmed about its reputation.


Some harsh things have been said inside and outside the House. I have said some at times and others have certainly said them about me. But, as you said, Mr. Speaker, one should not be oversensitive. If one is, politics is the wrong vocation to have chosen. In the face of allegations during the debates which which give rise outside to a profitable action for defamation, on the results of which one could comfortably retire, one has to remain undeterred and as resolute and cheerful as circumstances permit.
I extend to the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General a general absolution and I would ask the same in return—

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my Eon. Friend extend it to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who has done so much to help us?

Mr. C. Pannell: At least it applies to West Leeds: it does not apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: At this ecumenical moment, one might extend it to Northern Ireland.
There are differences of opinion, but 1 do not think that there has been a filibuster on the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not much."] Well, we could put it in our different ways—but there has been a determination to use normal parliamentary procedures as a legitimate way of delaying a Bill to which strong objections of principle were taken. If we had attempted to filibuster, the debate would be going on at four o'clock and later this evening—though, judging by present progress, it may do so, anyway. One of the lessons which I have learned from the debates is that it is much easier to start people talking than to stop them.
We have made our protest as effectively and sincerely as we can. There has been some provocation from the Government. I do not wish to be controversial, but the Government's equivocal rôle, however constrained they may have been by procedural necessities, was not particularly glorious.
Important Amendments have been made to the Bill. The word "well-being" has gone, and that is a great gain. The conscience Clause is in the Bill, and that is a great gain. Conscience

is king not only in this House, but in the country. If the Minister of Health has reservations about the need for the Clause, I can only say that, if a substantial proportion of those who have devoted their lives to healing feel reassured by it, there is a case for it, even if not on the strictly legal grounds.
We should have liked other Amendments, such as that which would have provided for abortions to be carried out under the supervision of a consultant—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not at this stage talk about what is not in the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We should have liked other Amendments, but I will not go into them.
I would thank those hon. Members of all parties who have given their time and energy to the opposition of the Bill. Since tributes have been flying around—none, alas, has come by way: I do not mind about that—I would pay my tribute to my hon. Friend and colleague the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who has played such a distinguished part in our debates. I join also in the congratulations to the sponsor of the Bill on his skill and moderation at all times. I have never had any personal complaint against the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), even in the debate's most heated moments. I hope that he will forgive my temerity in congratulating him when I am almost as junior a Member as he, not in years but in standing in the House.
One does not, of course, enjoy losing a battle—I presume that this battle will shortly be lost—unless one is a masochist, which I am not, but the fact that one loses does not mean that one is wrong, any more than winning proves one right. Lost causes do not worry me. I have had my fair share in the House and I dare say that I shall have more. The decision, not of the House but of the Queen in Parliament, is legally final and this has yet to be given. If the Bill becomes the law of the land, it will be everyone's loyal duty to accept it as such, but the law of the land can make no claim to final rectitude.
The debates on the Bill have given many of us something which we perhaps


prize above all else—an opportunity to state as sincerely and effectively as we can the tradition and the case of Christian humanism against the Bill. That is an opportunity which could have been given only by our system of parliamentary government, and one which I, for one, will always be grateful for having enjoyed.

11.18 a.m.

Sir M. Galpern: I must express my admiration for the industry of the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). As one who recently piloted a comparatively minor Measure on to the Statute Book and knowing the negotiations involved in even that exercise, I can appreciate how much time he must have devoted to this matter.
I would say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I am disturbed by his defence of the use of the House's time to facilitate the Bill. What is exercising many of my constituents is that the two Bills, the homosexual Bill and the abortion Bill, were so favourably treated when other privately sponsored Bills have not received that treatment, Would my right hon. Friend have been so ready to give these facilities to these Bills had he not known the outcome in advance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak only about the handling of this Bill. We are on the Third Reading of one Bill.

Sir M. Galpern: I have no desire to quarrel with wou, Mr. Speaker, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a major issue in his defence of the method of putting the Bill through the House. But I will not pursue the matter.
I come now to a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), who said that the House had anticipated public opinion and that millions of women welcomed it. Am I to infer from that that millions of women have been seeking abortions and, having been denied the opportunity of being aborted, welcome the Bill? It seems to me, if that is so, that the claim that millions of women are going to "enjoy" the fact that they can have legal abortion is not

something to congratulate ourselves on. I take an entirely different view, as do many others. That is surely not the purpose of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles expressed surprise that no one had referred to the recent conference of the B.M.A. which gave overwhelming support to the Bill. But he was rather unfair to the House in not stating that the approval was qualified. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] I did not hear him. He should have spelt out to us the full conditions that the B.M.A. Conference laid down. In passing a resolution expressing approval of the Bill, the conference laid down firstly, that the operation should be lawful
… only if carried out by or under the supervision of registered practitioners of the required skill and status.
We debated that matter very fully but were unsuccessful in getting an Amendment accepted. The rules of order prohibit me from going into that now, but I understand that the B.M.A. will seek an Amendment in another place. The second qualification was that we should remove
… the express indication in the Bill that pregnancy may be terminated if there was risk of injury to the health of any existing children of the family.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles told us in some detail of the case of a young girl who approached her medical practitioner because she was unmarried but pregnant. As a result, he was able to have discourse with her and it led to the fact that she had the child and everything in the garden was lovely. That is precisely what I am afraid of, as are many others, I am sure. I am afraid that the stigma that attaches to it and the abhorrence which people feel about abortion will no longer remain with them but will be removed and that the case the hon. Member mentioned will be multiplied a thousand-fold.
I am afraid that people who would not have thought of seeking to have a pregnancy aborted will wave the Bill before the medical practitioners and demand, or at least feel that they should be able to demand, an abortion. The hon. Gentleman confirmed that fear because the only case he cited was one which confirmed that the girl would never have gone to a medical practitioner unless she had


heard something about the Bill. This implies the grave danger that people who would not have thought of terminating a pregnancy will now go to their medical practitioners and seek an abortion.
Does the Bill attain its objective? It is estimated that about 3,000 abortions take place annually under the National Health Service and the estimate of the number of illegal abortions varies between 50,000 and 100,000 annually. What will be the position if a woman approaches her medical practitioner? Will it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, only be for the doctor to initiate the request for an abortion. If he visits a house and finds slum conditions, will he suggest that the woman have an abortion?
The initial approach and request will come from the pregnant woman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not disapprove of that, but it was not the argument put by my hon. Friend. He put the fact that it would be the doctor who would go, look around and suggest that the woman should be aborted. My supposition was that it would be the pregnant woman who would make the request and then it would be for the doctors, whether just qualified or in practice for 40 years, whether skilled in gynaecological problems or not, to judge her request.

Mr. Christopher Price: Clearly I did not put what I was trying to say clearly enough for my hon. Friend. I was trying to make the point that the Bill forces no one to do anything and that the woman could either go for an abortion or not. I never intended to imply that the Bill would mean that doctors would try to make women have abortions or—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Chistopher Price) has made his speech. I hope that we shall not have long interventions at this stage. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.

Sir M. Galpern: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles refuted that argument. He gave the instance of a woman who would never have thought of an abortion had she not seen the Bill. The two medical practitioners who must be involved will only act, in my opinion, when the pregnant woman feels that she has some case to argue. It will be for the

patient largely to initiate the argument and try to substantiate her case by going into all her troubles and worries and it will be for the two doctors to adjudicate on her submission.
In that respect, the whole case is wrong. What is going to happen to the number of pregnancies? I do not see that this Bill will in any way lead to a reduction in the number of illegal abortions. If a woman is determined to be aborted, and if her own medical practitioner is not prepared to yield to her request and feels that she is not legally entitled, she will obviously go to the back-street abortionist. In this respect, the Bill fails lamentably and in relation to the duties we are placing on general practitioners I want to quote from an editorial in The Times of 1st February 1966. It said:
It would place on medical practitioners the onus of deciding whether to destroy the potentiality of human life by criteria which are so loose as to be capable of almost any interpretation and about which it is scarcely possible to form a scientific opinion. Who is to say what is meant by a reasonable enjoyment of life, or can predict an unborn child's capacity to possess it? What agreement is to be expected in the assessment of a woman's adequacy as a mother before her child is born?
I sat through our proceedings on this Bill a fortnight ago and have been here almost all the night but I have not heard an argument which could answer that excellent editorial published as far back as February, 1966. I therefore feel that a public opinion poll in my constituency would be overwhelmingly against the Bill. I shall vote against the Bill. I think that it is bad in principle. I still believe that the proper method of dealing with the problem would have been to deal with it socially and to tackle it by referring it to a Royal Commission.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich) rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich.

Mr. Silkin: My excuse for intervening, I hope quite briefly, is, first, that I have a certain family relationship to abortion and, secondly, that I have sat through most of the 24 hours or so of the Report


stage and Third Reading and up to now I have not taken part in the debate.
May I begin by joining other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who has piloted the Bill through the House, on his performance. May I say to him with all humility that he, one of the youngest Members of the House, has had to face the same difficulties and has overcome them with the same skill as one of the oldest and most experienced members of the other place has found in dealing with the same subject. I will make only two points. One is a very general point on the Bill and the other concerns the conscience Clause, Clause 4.

Mr. James Tinn: For the benefit of one of my hon. Friends, would my hon. and learned Friend explain his reference to a family connection with abortion? There is a risk that my hon. Friend might think that it was a relationship with the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Silkin: I think that most hon. Members understand the reference even if my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) does not. No doubt in another place the connection will become clearer as time goes on.
Throughout the Report stage, I have noticed time and again that it has been suggested that the conflict of principle or of interest is a conflict between the life, the health, even perhaps the convenience of the mother, on one side, and the unborn child on the other. I do not believe that that is the true antithesis or, at any rate, the complete antithesis. One must realise, in addition, that it is not only the mother's life, health or happiness which is at stake. To me there is nothing more tragic in this world than the thought of a child, perhaps a deformed child, perhaps a mentally subnormal child, who, in addition to that, has to go without the love and affection which a true family life brings. That is the tragedy, I believe, in so many of the cases in which abortion will become possible under the provisions of the Bill.
Hon. Members must realise—as has been emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price)—that abortion will take place only if the mother wants it

to take place. Although examples have been given again and again of parents who have had the deepest love and the deepest affection for children who are misshapen or who suffer from physical and mental handicaps, nevertheless there are also, unhappily, many, many cases in which, because the children are born, or it is believed that they are likely to be born, misshapen or with handicaps of that kind, the parents do not have that love and affection but, on the contrary, have a feeling of hatred which reflects itself upon the child. It is that kind of attitude, and that sort of life which the child will have to live in those conditions, which produces more tragedy in the world than anything else.
I am glad that the promoter of the Bill said that the conscience Clause will be looked at again. I want to raise a point about the Clause which has not been raised in this form in our lengthy debates upon it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said, as I understand him, that in his view, and on the advice which he has been given, the Bill in itself imposes no new duty upon any doctor or, indeed, any other person concerned with abortion. I accept that entirely. What he did not say, and what I do not believe he meant, was that it in any way affects the duty which exists today, the ordinary duty, when one person, particularly a skilled person, such as a doctor, has charge of the health of somebody else. There is the ordinary duty to take care—a duty which, if it is not obeyed, can give rise not merely to civil proceedings but, in extreme cases, to criminal proceedings, too. That duty has to be obeyed.
While I accept entirely that there is every reason why a doctor, for example, who has a conscientious objection to taking part in an abortion which is being undertaken on grounds which he believes to be quite wrong, should have the opportunity of refraining from doing so, when it comes to the question, as it will, of the life of the mother against the conscientious view of the doctor, then to me the higher conscience is the conscience which preserves the life of the mother. I believe that the Clause as it is framed gives too much latitude. It goes too far, because it allows the doctor in those circumstances to say, "Notwithstanding the fact that my refusal to have anything


to do with this case might cost the life of the mother, my conscience says that I will not do it". I do not believe that that is right. I do not believe that the ordinary member of the medical profession would think it right. I very much hope that when the Bill goes to another place the re-thinking, which the hon. Member has promised will be done, in fact will embrace this principle of the conscience Clause above all.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Sir Douglas Glover: Sir Douglas Glover rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion at this stage. The Chair is in difficulties. It must protect the right of minorities. That has been done right through the night. But hon. Members have been debating for quite a long time and I sense a feeling that the House would soon wish to come to a decision. I hope that hon. Members will forgo the luxury of attempting to catch my eye.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I will be very brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have been here all night."] I have been here all night, too.
This is a very sad moment for me. I should like to join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on his success in getting the Bill thus far. We all acknowledge his zeal and his industry. But to me it is a sad moment, though I welcomed the Bill in the first place, and voted for it on Second Reading. I made it plain when it reached Committee that I was strongly in support of reform of the law regarding abortion. The Home Secretary was not very generous to me, but I will acknowledge that he was absolutely right about the existing state of the law. It is harsh, archaic and confused.
I was one who strongly hoped that we could find a broad measure of agreement right the way through. I expected that in a matter of this kind, where the success of the Bill depends so much on the cooperation of the healing professions, due regard would be paid to their views. I much regret that this has not been so. The

hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles referred to the rejection at the representative meeting of the B.M.A. of what might be called the Birmingham school of thought. He was right about that, but he did not add that the B.M.A. accepted abortion law reform, as I and many of my hon. Friends have done, on four conditions.
It would not be proper for me to refer to two of them, because they are not in the Bill. They were rejected. One objectionable feature is in it and the B.M.A. has said firmly that it wants to see it out. This is one of the realities of the situation. My complaint against those who have piloted the Bill through so far, and against the Government too, is that they have not paid sufficient regard to the realities. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) claimed a moment ago that the Bill would not make much difference, that there would not be any great increase in therapeutic abortions. But the sponsor of the Bill told us, and genuinely believes, that already there is a change in the climate of opinion. More patients are being referred to gynaecologists for abortions, presumably at the hospitals. I prefer to think that he is right. Indeed, the Bill has no meaning unless it has encouraged a view outside the House that therapeutic abortion will be obtained more easily—I do not say on demand.
The idea has been spread around that it will be available on the National Health Service. But again what are the realities? I hope that when we send the Bill to another place it will face up to them. Only last week the Minister of Health revealed to the nation that the number of women waiting for urgent gynaecological treatment in National Health Service hospitals is now 84,000–10 per cent. more than last year. Are our consultant gynaecologists going to make that list longer by making beds available to those who want abortions?

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Mrs. Lena Jeger rose—

Mr. Braine: May I continue? I do not want to take too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But I want to establish that the Bill does not mean that women will get more easy abortion through the National Health Service. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] For the


simple reason that the hospitals cannot cope, as everyone, and the Minister of Health above all, knows.
My point—I say this with sadness; I wish that I did not have to say it; and I wish that I were wrong—is that the Bill in fact is a licence to medical practitioners in the private sector to carry out abortions, certainly in accordance with Clause 1, but in return for fees. That is what the Bill does. It does not bring a remedy to the poor, to the people who cannot pay 150 gns. It is high time the House faced these realities and the fact that defiance of the wishes of the leaders of the medical profession has alienated large numbers of them. This is a fact which the country will discover, if my colleagues have not. I say that with the greatest sorrow—[HON. MEM-

BERS: "Sit down."]—because I think that genuine reform of abortion law is overdue.

Mrs. Renée Short: Mrs. Renée Short rose—

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way to me?

Hon. Members: He has finished.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 83.

Division No. 470.]
AYES
[11.45 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William


Ashley, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Astor, John
Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Barnes, Michael
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Neave, Airey


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan


Bell, Ronald
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Binns, John
Haseldine, Norman
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hastings, Stephen
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, s'tn)


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bradley, Tom
Henig, Stanley
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hill, J. E. B.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Pavitt, Laurence


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howie, W.
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, Henry
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Coe, Denis
Hunt, John
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. p'c'as)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kirk, Peter
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Scott, Nicholas


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'tti &amp; C'b'e)
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Ennals, David
Loveys, W. H.
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Smith, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fowler, Gerry
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Freeson, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Gardner, Tony
Mendelson, J. J.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.




Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitlock, William
Worsley, Marcus


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Yates, Victor


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


White, Mrs. Eirene
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Sir George Sinclair


NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Percival, Ian


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cary, Sir Robert
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Corfield, F. v.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Crowder, F. P.
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacColl, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macdonald, A. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dempsey, James
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wall, Patrick


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
Mellish, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fraser,Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'flord &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Clover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wylie, N. R.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Oakes, Cordon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grieve, Percy
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the Rouse in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Marine, &amp;c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act, 1967.
2. Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1967.
3. Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1967.
4. Public Records Act, 1967.
5. Uniform Laws on International Sales Act, 1967.
6. Protection of Birds Act, 1967.
7. Decimal Currency Act, 1967.
8. Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1967.
9. Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod Act, 1967.
10. Farm and Garden Chemicals Act, 1967.

11. Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1967.
12. Tokyo Convention Act, 1967.
13. Prices and Incomes Act, 1967.
14. Churches and Universities (Scotland) Widows' and Orphans' Fund (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act, 1967.
15. Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1967.
16. Royal Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1967.
17. St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act, 1967.
18. Brunel University Act, 1967.
19. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1967.
20. The City University Act, 1967.
21. University of Aston in Birmingham Act, 1967.
And to the following Measures passed under the provision of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure, 1967.
Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure, 1967.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain whether I had published last night a list of the selected new Clauses and Amendments.

Mr. Ian Percival: Yes, Sir. You had published a provisional list, with the addition of Government Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon and learned Gentleman. We begin with new Clause No. 1.

New Clause No. 1.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS OF ARREST AND ENTRY.)

The powers conferred on a constable by subsections (5) and (6) of section 2 of this Act shall be exercisable by him in any circumstances and at any time when he has reasonable cause to believe that in those circumstances and at that time there is imminent danger of loss of or injury to life, limb, health or property which can only be prevented by the exercise of the said powers but not in any other circumstances or at any other time.—[Mr. Percival.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
After the rigours of last night, for which the Under-Secretary and I, along with other hon. Members, were present, neither the fluency of thought nor of word which is so desirable for the proper consideration of a technical matter like this will be so readily available. Nevertheless, I hope that we may be able to make progress with reasonable despatch and efficiency. My object will be to balance the two. Neither one on its own is sufficient. We must try to balance both.
My hon. Friends and I have given careful thought to what was said in Committee and, in addition, the Under-Secretary and I have had some correspondence and discussion which has been conducted in a mutually helpful frame of mind. I do not wish to infer from that that the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that he intends to make any concessions. But I hope that the correspondence, and the terms in which I have made these general obser-

vations, may set the tone for conducting the business which is before us. The fact that there was acrimony in Committee is no reason why there should be any here today.
My hon. Friends and I have tabled this and other new Clauses, and a number of Amendments, in a desire to be helpful, and we hope that there may be some compromise. We have always said that we welcome the Bill, which sets out to achieve the very desirable objective of getting rid of an archaic distinction.
Equally, we have said that it does not follow that the first suggested way of getting rid of that distinction and dealing with the consequential difficulties is necessarily the right one. The new Clauses and Amendments that you have kindly selected, Mr. Speaker, incorporate three of the points that worried us most in the Bill.
The Clause relates to the exercise of the powers conferred on constables under subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 2. Subsection (5), in the briefest and most general terms, deals with the power to arrest someone about to commit an offence but who, ex hypothesi, has not yet committed it. Subsection (6) deals with the power of entry into a person's home to effect an arrest. We are not happy about the precise provision in relation to either of those powers. I am not now arguing whether there should be those powers—that matter we debated in Committee, and we lost. What we are concerned with today is to refine the provisions, if we can, to ensure that they do nothing more than was intended.
I think that I can safely say that everyone, whatever their views on the Clause, has expressed agreement on two things. The first is that it is a very serious matter to arrest a person who is not guilty of any offence. To some extent, it is contrary to some of our general beliefs—but let us not go into that. Let us, instead, agree that it is a serious matter. We must also agree that it is a very serious matter to give someone the right to enter someone else's house, by force if necessary.
It is said that both of these serious powers are necessary because there may otherwise be emergencies in which the situation cannot be dealt with unless these powers are available. This, I follow. The


purpose of the Clause is to ensure that we are giving powers only for the purpose for which they are intended, and are not unintentionally going wider than anybody intended.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. I have left it in the envelope and I hope that I shall not have to take it out, but it is fair to say that as far as is material to the point I wish to put to the House the Under-Secretary's argument might be summarised under two general headings. The first was that there might be these cases of urgency where these powers would be necessary and very useful, and the other was that these provisions were not widening the law, but rather narrowing it by limiting the class of person who could use the powers.
As to the first of those points, what the new Clause seeks to do—and, I respectfully suggest, does—is to ensure that the powers are only used, are only usable, in cases of emergency. I suggest that it does no more at all than that. I would, therefore, consider it in line with the Under-Secretary's thinking on the matter as expressed by him in Committee.
As to the second point—and these two points are inter-mingled to a certain extent, but I take them separately for convenience and speed—the Under-Secretary's argument in general terms was that we should not be worried about subsection (5) because it merely put into statutory form an existing power, and furthermore, he said, limited it to police constables, whereas under the common law it was available to private citizens, too. I ask him to consider the view that there is serious ground for thinking that there is an error in both propositions.
I will take the second proposition first. I. was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is authority for saying that there is at present a common law power exercisable both by constables and private citizens to arrest someone about to commit an offence. If that be so, I think it clear under subsection (7) that the common law will continue to be exercisable by private citizens. Therefore, if it is believed that subsection (5) limits the power to constables, I respectfully draw attention to subsection (7), which appears to me to save a power, if

power there be, in respect of private citizens.
But the more important point relates to the exercise of the power by constables. The Under-Secretary was good enough to refer me to the cases that were said to be the authority for the proposition that constables already had this power. I appreciated his doing so and I followed up the cases, and, in more detail in Committee than I shall do now, I expressed the view that they were authority for the proposition that a constable could exercise a power to arrest where someone was about to commit an offence, but that it was clear from those authorities that he could do so only in cases of urgency.
The difficult case in the authorities was where a constable heard screaming in a house, had reason to believe that a man was about to do serious injury to the woman, burst in, and arrested him. But the ratio decidendi with all those cases was that the common law recognised that in a case of urgency, where there was no time to go along and get a warrant either of arrest or of entry, it was plain common sense that, for the benefit of the public, there should be power of arrest and power of entry.
I believe that subsection (5) widens the power very considerably unless we add this Clause to the Bill, because it gives the constable unqualified power to arrest without warrant anybody about to commit an arrestable offence. Many of the offences of fraud are arrestable offences. There are "umpteen" arrestable offences that a person might be about to commit, but about which there would be no real urgency. I therefore respectfully suggest to the Under-Secretary and to the House that it is tolerably plain that unless we add this new Clause we shall be widening the powers of arrest of someone about to commit an arrestable offence but who, ex hypothesi, has not yet committed one.
Strong as the powers and serious as their consequences may be, there is strong argument for giving them where there is a degree of urgency in a situation which demands immediate action. I have therefore set out in the Clause to try to summarise the general conditions postulated in past authorities as being the ratio decidendi for saying that there is such a power. That is what the Clause does. It does not restrict what is required in


so far as what is required is wanted to deal with cases of urgency, but it makes it quite clear that these powers are not to be exercised unless there is some imminent danger of loss.
I have tried to advance these arguments in as reasonable, brief and co-operative a manner as possible. If, by being brief, I have left out any essential step and have not made my argument coherent, I should be glad to deal with any point which the Under-Secretary may think I have omitted. That is the burden of our case.

Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has argued the case for the Clause cogently and persuasively. It is a great pity that a matter of such importance should have to be dealt with after an all-night sitting. This is a very serious matter. It is not a party matter. It would be wrong that no hon. Member on this side should rise to support what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I fully agree with his argument. It ought not to be rejected lightly. It should be carefully examined.
I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee and hearing the arguments put forward there, but I have read the report of the proceedings in HANSARD. Under Clause 2(5) and (6), the power given to a constable, both in regard to arrest and in regard to entry into premises, is very wide. It is qualified only by the words "with reasonable cause". Those words would be very difficult to translate if a constable were to put forward facts which in his view constituted cause. I have read the remarks made in Committee by the Under-Secretary with regard to the right to make a claim for damages for false imprisonment, but the power granted in Clause 2(5) and (6) is very wide.
It is said in defence of this power that this does not enlarge the powers that existed hitherto. There is considerable force in the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that this may be a very doubtful argument and that on the authorities it may not be quite true to say that that is the position and that the powers are not being widened.
I am not so much concerned with the question whether these powers are widened. I am concerned with what, from a practical point of view and from the point of view of the safety of the community and of individuals, the powers should be. Should not they be limited in some way? The argument advanced by the Under-Secretary was that under existing law the powers of a constable are restricted to cases where it might be said that there is a sense of urgency, where it is necessary to make an arrest.
The new Clause contains an excellent provision to guard the public in any such circumstances of urgency. After all, why should there be the right on the part of a constable to arrest or to enter into premises, unless there is, as the Clause says
imminent danger of loss of or injury to life, limb, health or property which can only be prevented by the exercise of the said powers but not in any other circumstances or at any other time.
These words are wide enough to cover all emergencies.
I am much concerned about the danger of giving to a constable powers which are too wide. However much we trust the police force and however much we want to assist the police in their war against crime, we must pay great regard to the rights of individuals and to the protection of citizens. The Clause would achieve both purposes. It would give the constable the right of arrest. It would limit that right in a very reasonable way. I hope that the Under-Secretary will carefully examine the Clause and will not reject it out of hand but will say, either that he will accept it fully, or that he will look at it again carefully so that what is put forward in the Clause can be exercised fully.

12.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I must first apologise to the House. I have lost my voice. I do not know whether this is the result of the all-night sitting. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for moving the Clause as clearly and as briefly as he did. I also appreciate the support given to his remarks by my hon. and learned Friend the Member. for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
I turn now to the general points which have been made in criticism of Clause 2 as it stands. I repeat what I said in Committee, that the power to arrest given under Clause 2 where someone is about to commit an arrestable offence must mean that the power can be exercised only if the commission of that offence is imminent. There can be no question of simply foreseeing that at some future time someone may commit an offence and, therefore, exercising a preventive arrest. It must be where someone has the match read to strike to commit the offence of arson, for example. Therefore, the fears expressed in this respect are groundless.
Secondly, I want to deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's contention that the new powers are wider. The old common law power was not restricted to the circumstances which are now listed in Clause 2. The passage from Hawkins Pleas of the Crown which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted in Committee, to the effect that the old common law power would seem to exist where someone was seen to be
upon the point of permitting"—
I think that it should be "committing"—
a treason or felony, or doing any act which would manifestly endanger the life of another".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 9th May, 1967, c. 57.]
makes it clear that it was any act of felony which was about to be committed which gave rise to the power to arrest. It was not simply the circumstances which are now set out in the Clause.
Nor do I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that the old power is not restricted in the Bill. Clause 2(7) makes it clear that the other powers of arrest which are preserved are powers "apart from this section". This Clause deals specifically with the circumstances in which a power of arrest can be exercised where someone is about to commit an arrestable offence.
When all has been said in general defence of the present Clause 2, we must consider most carefully any suggestion which tries to provide more elaborate safeguards and see whether those safeguards are acceptable. We have considered the new Clause very carefully. It tries to describe in a Statute the circumstances in which the police should exercise the power of arrest. To provide a comprehensive delineation of those

circumstances is always a risky business. It is likely to give rise to difficulties. Immediately the question arises: may not there be some circumstances which would justify a power to arrest without warrant and which are not covered by the Clause?
An examination of the Clause shows that these difficulties are so substantial that I must advise the House to reject the Clause. For example, there may be a number of offences which the police might need to forestall by exercising the powers in Clause 2(5) and which do not necessarily involve
imminent danger of loss of or injury to life, limb, health or property.
Serious sexual offence may be about to be committed. There may be cases of child abduction. It may be an offence of assisting a prisoner to escape. None of these would necessarily come within the provisions of the new Clause, because there might not be any
danger … to life, limb, health or property".
Another arrestable offence in which, if the Amendment were carried, the power of arrest would cease to be available is that of spying. It is true that under Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act there is power to arrest someone who is about to commit an offence under that Act, but the existence of that power, which the Amendment would not affect, illustrates the unsoundness of the new Clause. If it were carried, a police officer could not arrest someone who was about to assist a prisoner to escape unless there was
imminent danger of loss of or injury to, life …
but he could arrest someone who was about to commit an espionage offence even though there was no such imminent danger.
The Clause refers not only to subsection (5), but to subsection (6) of Clause 2 of the Bill. That reference is particulrly unfortunate, because subsection (6) gives the general power for a constable to enter and search any place where a person is suspected to be or is for the purpose of arresting that person under any power conferred by Clause 2.
The powers under Clause 2 include power to arrest people who have committed offences. The net result of the new Clause would be that one could not search premises and arrest somebody—who might well be a serious criminal,


a murderer or a dangerous offender—who had committed an offence. One could not search premises for this purpose unless one could prove
imminent danger of loss of or injury to life, limb, health or property".
That danger might not be present.
While I certainly understand the spirit in which the new Clause has been moved and its admirable purpose, this kind of attempt gives rise to difficulties which should lead to the rejection of the Clause. If one looks at the original Clause, one finds that the fears which have been expressed are groundless.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for what he said at the outset. I am sorry that he has almost lost his voice. I thought for a moment that he would say that he was losing it but had just enough left to say "Yes", which would have been an agreeable outcome of the debate.
Clearly, we shall not agree about this today. Therefore, I do not wish to present further argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, however, raised a point which, if it is valid, is a powerful one. I do not think that it is a valid point. I say this now because I hope that this will not be the end of consideration of the matter. It is sometimes tempting to think that once a Bill has gone through the House, nobody need ever think about it again. But there are other opportunities to put things right, and now is our chance to put on record for future reference the points which we would like to have considered.
The Under-Secretary said that my new Clause would cut out cases in which the subsection (5) power would be useful and he instanced a person who was about to help a prisoner to escape. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look again at this from the practical point of view. One thing which a policeman would not want to do is to arrest someone who was about to help a prisoner to escape, because he would then have on his hands someone who had not committed an offence and someone of whom it might be difficult to dispose. If a police officer were in a position to arrest the person who was about to help a prisoner to escape, he

need only wait a minute or two and he would catch him attempting to help the prisoner to escape or helping the prisoner to escape. That would be far more satisfactory from the police point of view, because they would then have arrested a criminal who could be punished instead of arresting somebody who had not committed an offence and whom they would not know what to do with.
The Under-Secretary says that the power could be exercised only where danger was imminent and that it is important that it should be exercised in every case where it is imminent, whereas my new Clause limits it to cases in which there is imminent danger of the kind therein specified. The point which I would like the Under-Secretary to consider is a similar one. Take the case of someone who, it was supposed, was about to steal some stockings in a shop. The one thing that one would not want to do is to arrest that person for being about to steal stockings. One of two courses would be taken. Either the store detective would say, "Move along", thus preventing a crime, or, if there was reason for not doing that, supposing that the person was thought to be a hardened offender, one would wait another minute to see whether one's suspicions were true.
When one arrests a person for being about to do something, there is an element of speculation about it. We do not want an element of speculation. Without this power, the choice would be either to say, "Move along" and prevent an offence, or wait for the offence to be committed and arrest for the offence.
I have taken these few minutes of the time of the House because I ask whoever has responsibility for this matter to look at it again, although not in the context of the Bill. The criminal law and the whole powers of arrest are under review. I ask whoever is responsible to look at the matter again in the light of the observations made in this short debate, all of which have been made in a spirit of endeavouring to improve the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and learned Member propose to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Percival: Mr. Percival indicated dissent.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I misunderstood the tenor of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause No. 2.—(ORDER BY SECRE TARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT.)

(1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department shall within six months of the coming into operation of this Act make an order specifying—

(a) the action to be taken by a constable who has arrested a person under the powers conferred on him by subsection (5) of section 1 of this Act and by any other person or persons into whose custody the person so arrested may be placed; and
(b) the rights and facilities to be accorded to a person so arrested; and
(c) the powers and duties of the courts in relation to a person so arrested
and may by further order or orders made order this section subsequently amend or add to the provisions in the said order contained.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the said order or orders may provide for a summary process to be available to a person so arrested for the purposes of vindicating his reputation and obtaining compensation for such pecuniary loss if any as he may have suffered by reason of his said arrest.

(3) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Percival.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I hope that we can deal with this new Clause similarly. Its objects are apparent from its terms. Again, my hon. and learned Friends and I have tried to take advantage of our discussion in Committee and, as the result of our consideration of that discussion, we are putting forward a quite different proposal. The objects are the same but we have tried—I believe successfully—to obviate the difficulties in our first suggestion and to put forward a better one.
It would be only fair to the Under-Secretary of State and right and proper that I should say that I understood that in Committee he fully recognised the importance of according the correct treatment and rights to a person who had been arrested. He indicated that he took no less a serious view of the importance

of that than we do. Therefore, what is proposed in the new Clause proceeds on that basis.
In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was twofold. First, as to what happens to a person after he has been arrested, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the existing practice is adequate and it was not necessary, therefore, to have in the Statute provisions about what should happen to a person and what he should be allowed to do. Secondly—I think that it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's second reason for suggesting that the time was not opportune to take action here—he said that his Department had in mind a thorough review of the law relating to arrest and that in the course of that review, it might well be possible to codify the existing provisions as a matter of practice.
If I have correctly summarised the points made by the Under-Secretary, there is nothing between us as a matter of principle. It is a question of mechanics. It was in that spirit that my hon. and learned Friends and I sat down to try to cast this proposal.
We are not satisfied that the arguments advanced in Committee by the hon. and learned Gentleman were good and substantial, for the following reasons. It will be for the convenience of the House and in the interests of speed if I define my reasons into those pertaining to subsection (1) of the new Clause and those pertaining to subsection (2), because they are different. We on this side take the view that it is important that all the matters covered in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) should be clearly known.
12.30 p.m.
We agree that in respect of most of the questions that might arise under those paragraphs, there is something that one might call a practice. What we find very difficult on occasion is to ascertain what that practice is. The only way I know of doing it is to search through "Stone's Justices Manual", though, excellent as that book is, I have never been able to find the precise answer I wanted on this question of the practice as speedily as I could have desired. In particular, it is not very easy to ascertain from Stone or anywhere else what are the rights of an arrested person who has


not committed any offence and what are the duties of authorities in relation to a person whom they have arrested and who has not committed any offence. That is all that this Clause deals with.
Whilst we have listened to the Under-Secretary's argument and we agree that to some extent it is right to say that practices have grown up which are recognisable, we do not think those practices are sufficiently clearly defined. We are not satisfied that they cover all eventualities, and we are particularly bothered about them in relation to the treatment and rights of an arrested person who has not committed an offence.
We are not alone in this because the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that none of these matters are party matters, and in another place at least one Law Lord expressed grave concern about this. We share that concern. Therefore, we take the view that it is very desirable that these rights and duties be specified. Nor do we think that is very difficult. We tend to fob off tasks the answers to which are not crystal clear, on the basis that we must have more time to think about them and that they are not so easy as they look. When somebody has got to get down to something, it is wonderful what he can do in a week. It is wonderful how people can make up their minds when they have got to. If there really is no doubt as to the treatment and the right to be accorded to such person there is no difficulty whatever in setting it out in writing. There is no difficulty at all if it is clear. If there is a doubt, then that doubt should be resolved, and resolved quickly.
I think I can fairly say that I recognise the difficulties of drafting in a statute and certainly, without the assistance of the Government, the precise provisions that one would want. Therefore, we have not sought to come to the House and say that we want these duties specified in the Bill. We also recognise that a little more time for decisions might be a good thing. That is why we have chosen this form in subsection (1) of the Clause, which is mandatory, namely:
The Secretary of State for the Home Department shall within six months of the coming into operation of this Act make an order specifying"—

the matters mentioned in the Clause, and he may by further orders vary the provisions. We have put upon him a duty which should not be difficult if the position is as clear as he says it is, and which really must be performed if it is not as clear as he says it is.
We have given him a long time to do this. When the Clause was drafted, the date for the coming into operation of this Bill was 29th August, 1967. I see that the Under-Secretary has on the Paper an Amendment which may well result in the date being changed to 1st January, 1968. If it is so changed, the effect of this Clause would be that he would have till 30th June, 1968 to do this. I would have thought that was a very reasonable time to give him to do what all would agree would be a very useful job.
No one must think that because I have dealt with this matter briefly we do not think it is very important. In Committee we stressed its importance. Now I am dealing with mechanics and am seeking to meet the difficulties and arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary.
I pass to subsection (2), the reason for which is quite different. Here again we start with a considerable measure of agreement on our hypothesis. I think the Under-Secretary agreed—I shall be grateful if he will indicate to me if I am misquoting him—that whenever a man is arrested there is ipso facto a very real danger of loss of reputation and there is inevitably some loss of liberty. The minute a man has been arrested and taken into custody there is the almost unavoidable danger that somebody will say, "What has old Fred been up to? He has been arrested". A man may be as innocent as ever a man was, but the danger of that loss to his reputation is there. We feel that this House ought to do more than pay lip service to its desire to protect the liberty of the individual, and if there is a way of putting that principle into effect we ought to take that way. This is what the subsection is designed to do.
It was said in Committee that something like this is not necessary. It was said that one can bring an action for false arrest and false imprisonment. So one can, but I want to make it clear that we are not thinking of this kind of remedy at all. I am not sure whether actions for


false arrest and false imprisonment lie in a county court, but if they do, it is a cumbersome procedure in which there may be many technical difficulties. It may well be enough for the arresting officer to say that he had reasonable cause, that it was just bad luck for the plaintiff, and he has no right to damages. Those remedies may be suitable in some cases. They may be suitable in cases where there is very substantial damage, but they are cumbersome, slow and expensive.
I doubt whether we can resolve this matter today, but I hope that consideration of it will not stop today. We want the Under-Secretary to consider what I am about to say. We want a simple procedure without attempting to specify now the details of that procedure. The essence of it would be simply that the man would only have to say that he was not about to commit an arrestable offence. Never mind the other technicalities. Speaking for myself, the principal consideration that I have in mind here is vindication of reputation. I want to see a very simple procedure whereby a man can go to the magistrates' court, establish that he was not about to commit an arrestable offence and have it publicly stated that he was innocent. That information gets into the newspaper or, if it does not, and the man hears any whisper that his reputation is suffering, he can say "That is wrong. Look at the decision of the magistrates".
To my mind, this is far and away the most important reason for this provision. But one could very conveniently combine with it modest sums of compensation. What I have in mind is the man who is waiting quietly at a bus stop, who is going to play his banjo in some night spot and a policeman in all good faith thinks that the man has got some hashish in his banjo or is about to start selling hashish, or something like that. In all good faith he thinks that the man is about to commit an offence, so he arrests him. In those circumstances, there could not, I think, be a civil action at present. There ought to be this procedure for allowing him to vindicate his reputation and, if he has lost his wages for that night, to be compensated. If there was no fault on the part of the police, neither was there any fault on his part, and he should not be the loser.
I imagine that the police themselves might welcome this. My experience of most police forces is that they are not beyond admitting a mistake if they have made one, and that they might, with the best of motives and good faith, arrest someone wrongly. In such a case, if there were this simple procedure, all that would happen would be that the man would go to the magistrates' court and, instead of his having to prove his case, the police would say, "Regrettably, a mistake was made here. We wish to make clear that there is no stain on this man's reputation". The magistrates would say, "That is splendid. Thank you for coming to tell us. We have pleasure in vindicating this man's reputation in public".
Even if it did not go as far as that in every case, if in some cases there were an issue as to whether he had been properly arrested, the only issue which would have to be tried by the magistrates, in the sort of scheme I have in mind, would be whether he was, in fact, about to commit an arrestable offence.
The fears expressed by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, that we might let ourselves in for a very complicated procedure which would cast heavy additional burdens upon the magistrates' courts, are not real fears. They certainly do not arise out of what I have in mind.
Subsection (1) is mandatory. Subsection (2) is discretionary. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take this as an earnest of our good faith and our desire to be helpful. We do not say that he must do it, because we appreciate that the matter would have to be worked out. We should be happy to co-operate in that. What we say to the Government is, "Please take to yourselves this opportunity to do something useful if the machinery can be worked out".
We have taken that line in subsection (2) as distinct from what we did in Committee because we appreciate that it would be highly desirable to discuss the matter with the Magistrates' Association and the Magistrates' Clerks' Association. Perhaps, after such discussions, reasons may be advanced which convince us that it would be impracticable, in which case we should accept that that was so. But, if the Government have the power and then, after consultation with the Magistrates' Association and the Magistrates'


Clerks' Association, a simple procedure can be worked out to achieve the objective, would that not be well worth while? I urge the Government to take this opportunity—it is no more than that—further to investigate what would, if it were possible to work out the practical side of it, be a most valuable procedure.
Subsection (3) is another earnest of our good faith. From this side of the House, it is always tempting to say that every regulation should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. Here, we propose that it should be the subject of the negative Resolution procedure.
Those are the reasons which have moved my hon. Friends and me to put down the new Clause. From what I have heard in Committee, and outside among lawyers, I suspect that there are many who agree. I urge the Government to accept the Clause and make use of the powers proposed.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: Again, support from this side ought to be given to this new Clause. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State accepts the principle of it, that the rights of an innocent person who is arrested ought to be protected. As I understand, that is the reason behind the Clause.
I am not attracted by the argument that there are certain known practices at present, that a person has rights and, therefore, that we need not bother to define them. I am not attracted, either, by the suggestion that there may be something in this proposal so let us consider it in detail at a later date and try to work something out.
Here is a Bill which, by Clause 2, expressly gives to a constable or another person the right to arrest someone for an arrestable offence or to enter into premises. If that right is clearly expressed in that way, we ought also to put into the Bill words showing clearly that the rights of an innocent person arrested in that way are protected. That is all that the new Clause would do. It would give the opporutnity to work something out. It is an obvious corollary to the power to arrest already given.
The new Clause clearly sets out what should be done. First, as regards sub-

section (1,a), it is essential that some direction be given as to action to be taken by a constable who has arrested a person under the powers conferred upon him. At present, we leave it at that, not saying what he should do. We simply leave it to the constable who has a suspicion to take the person and arrest him. What harm can there be in putting into clear words a direction as to how the constable should act?
Subsection (1,b) refers to
the rights and facilities to be accorded to a person so arrested".
We are considering here an innocent person who is arrested. What is he to do? Is he to languish there waiting for some action to be taken? Is he to be allowed bail, and, if so, when? What can be done in regard to those matters?
Subsection (1,c) refers to the
powers and duties of the courts in relation to a person so arrested".
Here is an excellent opportunity to give power to state the action which ought to be taken, with the primary object of safeguarding the innocent individual. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not dismiss the matter lightly, saying that there is a practice in regard to these matters or that he will consider the question at some future time. We want him to take opportunity under this Bill to go into the matter and state what ought to be done. The benefit would be that we should know from the terms of the Order what powers and rights an innocent person has to seek and pursue any remedy.
I am attracted by subsection (2). Those of us who practise in the criminal and civil courts know how difficult it is to establish a claim for false imprisonment. It is a cumbersome claim. One is met by all sorts of technical difficulties. Although one may be absolutely right, although there may be a great deal behind the claim, it is difficult to establish it. If an innocent person is arrested under Clause 2(5) or if there is wrongful entry under Clause 2(6), the innocent person ought in law to have a remedy and ought not to be restricted to the present remedies with all their difficulties and the cumbersome arrangements about pursuing them.
I do not know whether the proposed Clause is precisely right—I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) insists that this is the only way in which it could


be done—but it throws out the suggestion that when an innocent person is treated in this way he ought to have a quick remedy for two reasons.
First, his reputation has been injured and he has suffered damage or loss, and he should be able to get something in regard to that. But, still more important, he ought to have the right to establish at the earliest possible moment, so that the public may know—perhaps because there may be a reference in a newspaper to it—that he is an innocent person who was wrongly arrested. Although the Under-Secretary may say that this is not the right way to do it, I should like to hear him say that there is something in subsection (2) which requires careful examination in order to protect the innocent individual.
I think that the Clause is a good one and worthy of very careful consideration. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not dismiss it lightly. I trust that if we do not get the new Clause we shall have the consolation of hearing from him that, although the Government are always ready to help the police and give them powers for dealing with crime, they are adamant that the rights of the individual should he protected and that when an innocent person has suffered wrongly, full right should be given to him to obtain an appropriate remedy.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in this Clause. He deployed the arguments very fully and has been cogently supported by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
Subsection (5) greatly extends the powers of arrest of the police. Hitherto, powers of anticipatory arrest have operated with regard to felony but not with regard to misdemeanour. The new class of arrestable offence covers all felonies and many misdemeanours, and so the constable now has considerably increased powers of arrest.
It has never been very plain what is to happen to a person arrested upon suspicion when it is found that the suspicions are unfounded. Obviously, he must be released as soon as possible. Btu: now that the powers are greatly extended, it seems to me that a

code for the protection of the citizen ought to be laid down. We welcome the Bill as one which is likely to extend the protection given to the public against criminals, but it is correct that the rights and liberties of the innocent individual citizen should be protected as well. In Committee, we explored Amendments which were designed to achieve this. I make no complaint that we did not get very far with them, because the difficulties of doing so were pointed out by the Under-Secretary.
What we are seeking to do now is to give the Secretary of State power to prepare a code for the protection of the individual citizen. I cannot believe that anybody will quarrel with the desire to lay down a code in which the elementary rights of the citizen in a situation where, being innocent, he is arrested can be laid down so that he will know exactly where he stands. If the new Clause were accepted and these powers given to the Secretary of State, the individual would know or would be advised that he had certain rights and that if those rights were infringed, he would have appropriate remedies. What we urge upon the Government by the Clause is a code for the protection of the liberties of the individual citizen if, being innocent, he is arrested.
I commend the Clause to the House.

Mr. William Wilson: The discussion so far reflects the discussions that we had in Committee on this point. I think that all of us would agree that the powers which are conferred upon a constable in Clause 2(5) are really necessary because it makes sense that if an officer suspects that an arrestable offence is about to be committed he should have power to intervene and stop it.
What concerns all who have any idea of the difficulties that arise after a person has been arrested is what is to happen when the individual is taken to the police station. Other hon. Members have spoken about the position of the innocent person who is arrested, but I want to dwell for a moment upon the difficulties for the constable, because his difficulties are probably as great as those which would face an innocent person taken to the police station.
It does not mean that any actual offence has been committed when a man is


arrested on suspicion of having committed an arrestable offence. When the police officer gets the man to the police station his difficulties are great. He is bound to want to know how long he can keep him and what he is to do with him having actually got him there. It is incumbent upon my hon. and learned Friend to tell us what will be the position of a constable when he takes a person to the police station under Clause 2(5).
But we go a stage further, and this concerns me because we are all anxious that the standing of the police should not be impaired. I can see difficulty arising when a person who was rightly suspected of being about to commit an arrestable offence is taken to the police station. I cannot find from the Bill what is to happen to him. So we shall be in the situation that it is not the innocent person who will create the problem, but the one the officer has properly taken to the police station. Also, I would point out how unfortunate it will be if, after having been taken to the police station, that person is allowed to leave. He will say to all his cronies, because we all have suspicions of the type of individual who will be taken to the police station, "They took me in and they had to let me go". That is the worst possible thing which could happen concerning the standing of the police.
These points were raised on the Committee stage. I am bound to acknowledge that I was not happy with the explanation that we received, so I am repeating them here in the hope that in the interim my hon. Friend has found an answer which will satisfy the problems which will arise regarding the police officer and also solve the problem of nullifying the jubilation which might come to a man who has been correctly taken to the police station.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I had no intention of taking part in this debate. It is a combination of circumstances which has dragged me to my feet. The eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in putting forward the new Clause and an unfortunate slip of the tongue in his speech make it imperative that I should say something on behalf of the Members of Parliament who are

here who are honourable but not learned. At the end of his speech he said that he had the support of his hon. and learned Friends. It should be emphasised that that is not sufficient to carry the support of hon. and learned Members, because there are many others who do not carry the skills, forensic and otherwise, of my hon. and learned Friend, but these are our interests as well as those of hon. and learned Members.
I say that as a preamble, because I was interested in what my hon. and learned Friend had to say about the perilous position of a man who is arrested and never charged, but the fact of whose arrest becomes known to the general public. Undoubtedly he incurs a certain amount of odium in his neighbourhood against which he has little or no redress.
1.0 p.m.
I had a case recently of a man who was arrested, handcuffed, taken to the police station, kept there overnight and never charged, but, nevertheless, the police felt entitled to retain certain of his property. After a period of some weeks they went through a procedure, which my hon. and learned Friend will understand much better than I, of going to the court to get an order whether the property should be retained by the police or returned to my constituent. The magistrates' court decided that the property should be returned to him.
This was a case of a man arrested, handcuffed, kept overnight and never charged whose property was taken away from him and only as a result of a decision of the court having his property returned. Surely this man is placed in a very serious and difficult position and there should be some means, as my hon. and learned Friend has argued, of clearing his name in some way or other. Had he been charged he would have been in a better position, because he would have appeared before a court and the court would have cleared him and people would have said, "This man was wrongfully arrested. The court has cleared him. He is an innocent man." However, in this case he has no chance of clearing his name except by some cumbersome and expensive procedure which he is not in a position to pursue.
If my hon. and learned Friend's new Clause has the effect of providing some


redress for people in cases such as the one to which I have referred, I hope that the Government will give it their very serious consideration in the interests of the freedom of the individual which is the concern not only of hon. and learned Members but of all Members of the House.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not intend to take very long at what I should perhaps call this hour of the night. This matter was discussed at some length in Committee. If my memory serves me, we put down a number of Amendments covering these points individually and not in the comprehensive way covered by the new Clause of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). We withdrew those Amendments because we felt we had succeeded in persuading the Under-Secretary of State that there was here a serious case which merited investigation. I am disappointed not to find a Government Amendment on the Paper which deals with these points. He did not give us an undertaking, and I will not reproach him in that respect, but it seems unsatisfactory that these matters should be left in this way.
The new Clause is, I hope, aptly drafted, but we are now on the Report stage of a Bill which has come from another place. Perhaps the Under-Secretary might consider whether these Bills which come from the Law Commission would not start better in this House, so that the Under-Secretary of State would not have to advise the House either to accept my hon. and learned Friend's new Clause or accept that nothing can be done to redress these gaps in the law. This is the final stage and their Lordships are naturally more impressed by the authority of the Law Commission than perhaps the Members of this House.
The point which worried me in Committee, and to which I did not feel that the Under-Secretary gave us an answer, was that he said that these particular matters, which have been canvassed this morning by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) and my hon. and learned Friends, were dealt with on the whole by the practice of the courts—not by the law, but by the practice of the courts. Most of us felt that this was not good enough when we were dealing

with matters like the reputation of Her Majesty's subjects. This new Clause is an attempt to make explicit provision for these problems.
As the hon. Member for Coventry, South has said, the person arrested might have been about to commit an offence. Nobody will ever know for certain, because in the case that he assumes the constable took preventive action in time to stop its being committed. I think that any country should be most scrupulous about powers of preventive arrest and confine them very closely. Where it has happened it is obvious that the person arrested has to be released, because he has committed no criminal offence and, almost from the nature of the case, it could not be proved that he was about to, because the police intervened in time. Therefore, according to the presumptions of the law, he is an innocent man, and the question is how quickly he is let out. All that one does in the Bill is to cover the policeman for arresting the man if he had reasonable grounds, as defined in the Clause. That covers the arrest. But there is the man in prison. What is to happen to him? He has committed no criminal offence. There is no procedure laid down in the law; it is done by common sense and practice; and our broad point is that that is not good enough.
The other case is the man who has been arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and who is able to show that he did not commit it. He, therefore, is arrested in error, but the policeman in making the arrest was acting reasonably because he had reasonable grounds for suspicion. That man has been wronged and there should be provision, not merely for his release, but also, in a suitable case, for paying him appropriate compensation.
The new Clause provides for these matters. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not be the only person taking part in this short debate against the new Clause, but I have a nasty suspicion that that is just how it will turn out.
This is the last stage and he cannot say that this will be put right in another place. The Bill has come to us from another place and therefore the voice of the Under-Secretary of State will be the


voice of doom about the state of the law. I hope that he will do better this afternoon than he did in Standing Committee and will tell us that, even though he may have come here with a restrictive brief and instructions not to accept any Amendments, despite the state of exhaustion he may reasonably be in, he will, persuaded by what he has heard from his own side as well as this side of the House, accept my hon. and learned Friend's new Clause.

Mr. Taverne: The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) was right to say that no point of principle is involved and that we should be concerned not only with the rights of the police but with those of the individual being arrested, whether rightly or wrongly. One sympathises with these aims. The three Amendments selected, and even that which was not, deal with matters of substance as opposed to some of the others which were not very meritorious.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said that this Clause vastly increased the powers of arrest, but this is not so, as they existed before. They will exist in some cases in which they did not before and some misdemeanours will now be covered, but although more than 40 misdemeanours are now covered which were not before, in relation to many, statutory powers of arrest are already existing and others are cases in which the power is hardly ever likely to be used because there is no need for summary arrest.
In a few cases, the power is abolished, so there is no vast extension but simply a new provision that, once the distinction is abolished—

Mr. Grieve: I did not use the word "vast", but said only that there was an extension; no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees.

Mr. Taverne: I did not take a verbatim note. There is no great extension but only a minor one for certain offences.
The Clause raises largely the same issues which were raised in Committee and if I dealt fully with all the points I would simply repeat those arguments, when I said that of the matters now sought to be covered by a Statutory

Instrument and which were sought in Committee to be covered in the Statute, some are now dealt with by the law and some in practice. I did not and do not say that this is entirely satisfactory, but there would be great advantage in putting all powers of arrest—not just these—and the question of what happens afterwards, some of which are now dealt with by the common law, into a statutory code.
It is not completely satisfactory. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) gave an example which seemed unsatisfactory, but the important factor is that the Bill creates nothing new. His example would not be covered by the new Clause and could still happen. The real objection is that the new Clause singles out one circumstance in which a power of arrest is exercised and provides for what will happen after the arrest, and makes no provision for other cases of arrest.
It deals only with Clause 2(5), but such a code should deal equally with subsections (2) and (4) and the other cases of arrest which are not even mentioned in the Bill. Piecemeal legislation dealing with one case is unsatisfactory when what is needed is a review of the law of the powers of arrest and some codification and clarification of what should happen to those arrested. These are the arguments which I advanced in Committee and must repeat.
The powers of arrest will be reviewed and we will bear in mind what hon. Members have said about early action. One might consider whether, before legislating, one could not issue some directions to the police. In the meantime, directions could be issued about what should happen in cases of arrest not only under subsection (5) but in other cases as well. In practice, it is clear—

Mr. Percival: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that this code will take more than 12 months to draft? If not, his objection that the Amendment relates only to one subsection could easily be remedied by a manuscript Amendment. I would agree to that.

Mr. Taverne: The drafting of a statutory code would clearly take longer than 12 months. In a recent speech, the Home Secretary laid down the long-term plans for criminal law reform and one of the


first jobs will be a review of the powers of arrest. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we do not accept his suggestion to amend. It is too late to amend. Also, there is a technical defect in the Clause, in that it refers to subsection (5) of Clause 1, when it should have been Clause 2. That is a misprint, no doubt.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we should put forward a new code of practice dealing with questions of compensation and the important issue of vindication of character by a Statutory Instrument. But this is the wrong way. Even though it would be a simple process and a High Court trial would not be needed, but perhaps only a magistrates' court, questions of whether there was cause for the arrest and matters of compensation would have to be studied, and this provision should not be made by Statutory Instrument.
1.15 p.m.
I am sure that hon. Members would agree that this is the wrong way and that the details could not then be properly examined by the House. Thus, although I sympathise with the purpose of the new Clause, a comprehensive review of the powers of arrest and subsequent events would be much better.

Mr. Weitzman: When will something be done in regard to this? The Amendment is largely probing.

Mr. Taverne: The review of the policy questions and principles concerned in the powers of arrest will start shortly, but I obviously cannot say at what stage legislation on part of a code of procedure would come forward. It could not be drafted overnight and it is not for me to say when it will come forward.

Mr. Percival: When the debate began, we entered the 23rd continuous hour of debate and I feared that the discussion might not be very detailed, which would be a pity as these matters affect the rights and liberties of the subject and are discussed on few occasions. They interest and concern hon. and learned Members—and hon. Members—on both s des and we have had a non-party debate in which it has been a pleasure to speak. We all hope for a review in which the opinions which have been expressed can be further considered. I hope that I am not introducing a note of sourness—it is

not my intention—when I say that I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not feel that he could meet us a little more than he has indicated.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) referred to the wording of subsection (2). Of course, I would not stand on the precise wording. We are all aware of the difficulties of drafting on the Opposition side. But there would be no technical difficulty in putting it right even now if the Government introduced a simple manuscript Amendment, for that would cure all the difficulties. I cannot regard that as a point of substance, therefore. In subsection (2), by making the powers very wide, the precise wording does not matter. It is not limiting. Incidentally, there is a misprint in it. Instead of "penurious" the word should be "pecuniary".
I am glad that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) raised the question of the point of view of the police. I left it out in moving the new Clause so as not to be too long but, of course, it is a most important point both from the point of view of their personal position and of their public relations. It is in this kind of uncertainty, in which a person does not know his rights and the officer does not know them and so does not afford them to the person which causes and we cannot afford any more between the police and the public. There is enough of it already.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), I am sure that almost every lawyer is delighted that at least one non-lawyer has taken part in the debate. All through the Committee proceedings, the hope was expressed that non-lawyers would take part and we are obliged to my hon. Friend for having done so today.
I said that I was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not go further, and I meant it. I am rather appalled—I must put it as strongly as that—by his suggestion that it will take more than 12 months to draft this code. I do not think that the Home Office can have it both ways. If the position really is satisfactory—that is to say, that it is known to the policeman, which is the minimum requirement for it to be satisfactory—it should not take long to


write it out. I agree at once that one should give those writing it out a chance to consider and improve it, but the first step should not take a week if the position is as satisfactory as the hon. and learned Gentleman says. If it is not as satisfactory as he says, it should be ready in less than 12 months. One learns sometimes in the law, when an extension of time runs out, what can be done in 48 hours if one has to do it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no point of principle between us. With respect to him, and in support of my request to look at this again, it is not easy to reconcile that with his refusal to meet us or to offer any sort of early relief, and if his argument were that this was not the best way to do it but that the Home Office would look at the matter within six months to see what other means could be found, I would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. All we have from him at the moment is that the position is quite satisfactory now, but that the Home Office is to draw up a code which will take longer than a year to prepare.
The rights of the subject are more important than that. The rights of the subject and the interests of the police demand that this should be clarified within 12 months. Even if the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot offer a glimmer of hope now, I urge him to consider the matter again. This matter cuts across party lines and what hon. Members have said has all been based on experience and the genuine desire to protect the rights of the subject.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 4.—(PENALTIES FOR ASSISTING OFFENDERS.)

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 33, to leave out 'other'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment can be discussed Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 33, after 'person', insert:
'other than the husband or wife or parent or child natural or adopted of the person who has committed the arrestable offence',
and Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (4), both standing in the name of the right hon. Mem-

ber for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and the names of other hon. Members.

Mr. Percival: This is a case where there was even more agreement on both sides of the Committee on what one would like to do. I shall move the Amendment briefly, because originally it was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), although in slightly different terms. I want to explain why the terms of this Amendment are slightly different from the one moved in Committee.
This Clause deals with the crime which is to take the place of accessory after the fact. Both sides of the Committee recognised that there were difficulties here. One difficulty is the position of the husband or wife who helps his or her spouse when that spouse has committed a crime. Another relates to the position as between parents and children. We all felt that, somehow or other, there was something different about these cases. The theory of the law is quite adequate when an outsider has committed a crime in cold blood but there are special relationships—for example, between husband and wife, or parent and child—and we felt that we wanted to make some exceptions.
One solution suggested was the exclusion of certain categories from the subsection, thereby excluding them from the possibility of being prosecuted for the offence. Another way out suggested was to give the Director of Public Prosecutions a discretion to decide who should be prosecuted, so that, H he had a case of wife helping her husband—which could be understandable having regard to family relationships—he would refuse his permission to prosecute.
The difficulty encountered in Committee, in relation to the exclusion of husband and wife, was that this subsection is so horrible a complication that an outright exclusion such as we had in mind might create greater difficulty. The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to write to me at some length on the matter.
This Amendment goes wider than the Amendment moved in Committee, which most of us recognised then to be too wide. I have changed my opinion for a


simple and practical reason which I should tell the House. Our Committee proceedings seemed quiet. It did not appear that any one was taking an interest in us. But I had a letter from a Greek gentleman who said that he had seen the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings and that it was right that special relationships should be recognised. He said that, in the Greek criminal code, there are these exceptions. I wrote to him and asked whether he could let me have translations of the appropriate provisions. He kindly did so. I passed copies to the Under-Secretary. I will not go into details now. Suffice it to say that in the Greek criminal code not only are husband, wife and children, natural and adopted, excluded, but all familiars are excluded, and a familiar is defined in extremely wide terms. We have, therefore, the practical example of someone in a country which recognises the principle and applies the exclusions on a far wider basis than we are proposing—and we are told that it works.
1.30 p.m.
I ask the Home Office to try it. I am not suggesting that it is based on any legal history or argument, such as that referred to by the Under-Secretary in Committee when he said that at one stage husband and wife were regarded in law as one and, therefore, it could not be considered as an offence for one to help another. My plea does not rest on such technical or rational grounds, perhaps. In Committee, I said that we ought to recognise that there are some things which we cannot put on a wholly rational basis, and one is the special relationship which exists between people. Here we have a chance to deal with the matter. We recognise that there ought to be a special relationship between husband and wife and mother and father and children, and at least we could experiment in giving effect to our beliefs.
My second reason in support of the Amendment is that the alternative is so bad. The alternative chosen by the Government is to give a discretion to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I think that that is bad for three quite separate but all very valid reasons. The first is that in principle giving a dispensing power is bad. It may well be neces-

sary in some cases, but one of our monarchs several centuries ago lost his head for exercising dispensing powers.

Mr. Grieve: Not his head.

Mr. Percival: Well, he got into serious trouble. I thought he lost his head. He got into trouble for too freely exercising dispensing powers which he claimed for himself. His wings were clipped and his dispensing powers were cut down. That is because the law of the land should be certain and nobody should be above them, not even the monarch. Every time we give this discretion to the Director of Public Prosecutions we are giving him a dispensing power.
My second reason is perhaps more practical. I have a strong feeling that the Director of Public Prosecutions must be getting very much overloaded. This must have been a good idea when somebody first thought of it, when somebody first suggested giving a discretion to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It must have been passing the buck. This is what we usually do when we cannot decide for ourselves; we pass the buck by saying that the Director of Public Prosecutions shall decide or the courts shall decide.
It is all buck passing when we cannot reach a conclusion. It must have been quite sensible at first when we could see that there was an individual and he dealt with all the matters personally—ex-hypothesi he was a responsible individual whom we could trust, otherwise he would not be there, and we let him do it.

Sir David Renton: My hon. and learned Friend no doubt appreciates that whenever we say that there shall be no prosecution except with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions there is a limit on what in a free society should be regarded as a basic right of the individual citizen—namely, the right to see that the law is enforced by himself instituting a prosecution.

Mr. Percival: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I agree with him.
I was concerning myself with the overloading of the Director and wondering whether the Under-Secretary can help us in this matter. This will be the second time within 10 days that we have put another duty like this on the Director.


That causes me to wonder how many offences there now are in respect of which the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required. How many applications, roughly, are dealt with in a year? Is it 50 or 5,000? Who deals with them? Can they still be dealt with by the Director himself, or are they so numerous that they have to be dealt with by someone else?
If they are not dealt with by him, by whom are they dealt with? Whereas it would be right to pass this duty on the Director of Public Prosecutions when he performs it himself—the other objections which I have postulated still exist, but at least we know who is exercising a discretion—the minute that it gets too much for the Director himself and a number of other people exercise the powers, and nobody knows who is exercising them, then it seems to me that there is difficulty. The Director must be getting very overloaded, with the consequence that it is not the Director who is exercising these powers at all.
My third reason is of quite a different nature, but it is, nevertheless, important. The trouble about giving this discretion is that we are liable, wholly unintentionally, to provide a wholly unworthy person with a technical defence which lets him out when he ought not to be let out. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think that this is pie in the sky. Within a month at the Old Bailey I have seen four counts of indictment against three accused knocked out simply because someone forgot to telephone the Director of Public Prosecutions before starting the information or whatever one has to start in magistrates' courts. When one has this power one is risking giving a wholly technical defence in a wholly unmeritorious case.
Those are the three reasons why I think that the alternative chosen by the Government is so bad. It is for the reasons I have mentioned that the exclusion method is worth a try—it has been worked elsewhere—and that the only other alternative, that chosen by the Government, is so bad, and I invite the House to accept Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Grieve: Of all the issues with which we were concerned in Committee, the issue whether there should be any, and if so what, exemption from and

limitations on Clause 4(1) appears to me by far the most important. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that the Criminal Law Revision Committee has very great doubts, as appears from its Seventh Report, whether some limitation or exemption should not be contained in the draft Bill with regard to the special position of husband and/or wife and of children. Although it was quoted in Committee, I make no apology for reciting again what paragraph 31 of the Report says:
At first, we were inclined to recommend that the offence should not apply to things done for a criminal by his or her spouse, parent or child. There is a case for such an exemption on compassionate grounds.
I think that there is a case on rather more profound grounds in the special case of the husband or wife.
The paragraph continues:
On the other hand, it is difficult to devise a satisfactory exemption. Other family relationships, or perhaps professional or other relationships, might equally deserve protection, while there seems no strong reason for giving the exemption where, for example, a father and his grown-up son are both engaged in crime.
That is a plain limitation of what we are considering.
The paragraph continues:
Under the present law, as mentioned in paragraph 25 above, even spouses are not exempt from liability as accessory after the fact to felony. We came to the conclusion that there should be no exemption for any particular relationships but that as a safeguard against unjustified prosecutions the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required for a prosecution: This is provided by Clause 4(4).
While I appreciate the difficulties which the Criminal Law Revision Committee envisaged in laying down special exemptions or limitation, I believe that it should not be beyond the capacity of the House to devise a statutory limitation where we think that there should be one on good valid grounds.
I was, therefore, heartened when the Under Secretary said in Committee in a debate on an Amendment in my name, which would have exempted husbands and wives from the provisions of Clause 4(1):
In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. Member"—
my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry)—
not to press the Amendment, because I would like to consider this question again


and see if perhaps a modified Amendment in the way that he proposed could be the way out or whether other relationships could not be included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee F, 1st June, 1967; c. 126].
I was, therefore, rather disappointed that at this stage the Under-Secretary did not bring forward a proposal which would have met the considerable feeling in Committee that there should be a limitation on, or exemption from, Clause 4(1) in special cases.
May I say very briefly why I consider that there should be such a limitation or exemption? The case with which I have always been particularly concerned and thought was particularly important was that of husband and wife. I have no hesitation in saying that there are cases where the duty a husband owes to his wife, or a wife to her husband, may be stronger and supersede the duty one or other owes to the State. I concede at once that the ordinary citizen, even though he may have relationships of affection or ties of blood with a wrongdoer, may be under an obligation to the State to denounce that wrongdoer or at any rate not to impede his arrest or apprehension.
But can the rule be said to apply in the special case of husband and wife? Certainly, the common law never thought that it should. Until the case Holley, referred to in paragraph 25 of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report, it was always thought that wives at any rate were not capable of being accessories after the fact to their husbands' felonies. I do not want to go into legal technicalities, but I am not even sure that that rule was abrogated by Holley's case, because it dealt with a special situation, where the wife was an accessory not only to her husband but to an accomplice of her husband.
It seems to me that the common law was profoundly sensible in taking this attitude. The basis of the rule was always said to be twofold. First, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said, husbands and wives were considered to be one in law, as indeed they still are. Therefore, one could not help the other, because one person cannot, save metaphorically speaking, help himself.

1.45 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that Lord Mansfield

said that husband and wife are one in law, and that that one is the husband?

Mr. Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend hits the nail on the head, because the second basis which was said to exist for the common law rule was that the wife was in any event under the domination of her husband. The law assumed that what she did was under his domination and that therefore she could not be liable for it under the special circumstance.
Perhaps that rule might be regarded as a little out of date in 1967. Few wives are perhaps under their husband's domination to that extent, but I think that the House would still recognise that the relationship of husband and wife is wholly special. They owe a duty to one another with which the law should not interfere. Where, for instance, a husband is a fugitive from justice, is it not the wife's duty not only to harbour him and take him into the matrimonial home—after all it is his as well—but to protect him, hide him, shelter him from justice? Is a husband not also under a similar duty to his wife?
It seems to me that this raises a very profound and important issue. The wholly special relationship between husband and wife should not only be countenanced by the law but protected by it, and the law should say that where a husband or wife is sheltering the other from justice it should not interfere. I concede at once that the Amendment with which we were concerned in Committee took the matter too far. For example, it might have protected a wife who drew a gun on the police in protection of her husband, and, of course, we should not wish to do that. We should not wish to exempt from the operation of the law an Act that is positively wrongful in the very nature of things by one spouse in the protection of the other. But where the action is the mere hiding away, the mere—and I refer to the Bill impeding of "his apprehension or prosecution" in that sort of way, there should be a special provision in the Bill to protect that relationship.
The Amendment we are discussing goes further than that. It is concerned also with children, including natural and adopted children. I would not press all those categories for special exemption upon the consideration of the House. I


have spoken entirely of the special relationship of husband and wife. There are compassionate grounds why the law should not condemn too strongly a parent who protects his child from the law, or a child who protects his parent, but those are not relationships which from time immemorial have been specially regarded by the law as the relationship of husband and wife has been specially regarded.
The provision that no proceedings shall be instituted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions might be sufficient to deal with those cases. The D.P.P. would consider whether what the parent or child did was justified. However, it is not for the D.P.P. or anybody else to consider whether what a spouse does is justified. The mere fact of the marriage is, I suggest, justification in itself, provided that no positive act of wrongdoing is done—as, for example, in the case of one spouse drawing a gun on the police or a similar occurrence.
As it stands, Clause 4 puts a burden on the D.P.P. which bids fair to be intolerable. After all, the offence of being accessory to another's crime is an extremely common one. It is committed every day of the week and examples of it appear daily before quarter sessions, magistrates' courts and assizes. The Under-Secretary to some extent conceded that for the D.P.P. to have to consider every such case before permitting a prosecution to be brought would put an intolerable burden on him. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I see the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument on this point and that about subsection (4). If an Amendment is not made on the lines of No. 13, perhaps in the modified form suggested, there must be some other safeguard and the requirement of the consent of the D.P.P. would be one way. I also see the force of the argument that we should not unnecessarily multiply his burden." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st June, 1967; c. 126.]
The Clause will unnecessarily multiply his burden and I fear that, in practice, it will prove extremely difficult to administer.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Under-Secretary to accept the Amendment. I do not pretend that it is perfect, but we are dealing here with one possible way of meeting this situation.

I end as I began, by saying that, insofar as we are concerned with the special relationship of husband and wife, we are dealing with one of the most important issues which arise in considering the Bill.

Mr. Taverne: I regret that I have not been able to come to the House with a suitable form of words to give effect to what was the general feeling in Committee, where the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) moved an Amendment designed to exclude husbands and wives.
He referred on that occasion to a number of acts and pointed out that the Amendment was designed to deal not only with the harbouring of criminals but with the impeding of justice. He said that, as the Amendment stood, it went rather wide because there were some acts which might be done by a wife to protect her husband which one would not wish to see exempted from prosecution. The hon. Gentleman rather agreed with the view that there might be some serious crimes for which one should seek to retain some sort of deterrent to prevent spouses from perverting the course of justice.
I undertook to try to give the House a form of words which would be a limited protection to a wife or husband in the case of one spouse assisting another. Unfortunately, it has not been found possible to find such a form of words. My private secretary wrote to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) at the earliest possible opportunity, to allow the hon. and learned Gentleman ample opportunity to reconsider the matter; and he and his hon. Friends have tabled the Amendment under discussion.
I will explain why we are faced with this difficulty. The circumstances under which a wife or husband could not be prosecuted under the Bill are, in any event, extremely limited because a number of conditions must be fulfilled. First, the husband must have committed an arrestable offence. Secondly, the wife must have known or believed that the husband was guilty of that offence or some other arrestable offence. Thirdly, she must have done some act with intent to impede his apprehension. Fourthly—this is a requirement of Clause 4(1)—she


must have had no reasonable excuse for doing that act. The fourth point is particularly important.
One normally understands from the phrase "harbouring a criminal"—which is taking him into the home—that that would not apply if the wife simply allowed the husband to come back into the matrimonial home. It is extremely difficult to think of an offence of harbouring—the offence with which the Committee was particularly concerned at that stage—which was not already dealt with by the safeguards expressed in the Clause. It was, therefore, difficult to see what acts could appropriately be made subject to statutory exemption in favour of spouses, for one could imagine any number of cases where—as the Committee at the time seemed to agree—one would want to deter certain acts. For example, one would not want to take out serious cases of crimes committed where a wife gave false information or destroyed evidence.
It would seem impossible by Statute to draw a line which would distinguish the circumstances in which the public interest might require a prosecution and those where clearly it would not. One would not wish to see a wife prosecuted simply because, on being asked by a policeman if her husband was in the house, she replied, "No", although she knew that he was in the house. One can visualise many cases of that kind. It is impossible to distinguish between those cases, where one would wish to see an exemption made, and those cases where one would not.
The alternative approach adopted in the Bill was to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I appreciate that this has been criticised. I cannot tell the hon. and learned Member for Southport how many offences require for D.P.P's consent. I suggest that the question is one for the Attorney-General.

Sir D. Renton: Even if the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot tell us the detailed number of statutory provisions under which the consent of the D.P.P. is required for a prosecution, would he agree that in recent years it has been growing at the rate of three or four offences a year?

Mr. Taverne: I cannot give the figure, but is certainly true, as I recognised

in Committee, that there is an increase in the burdens being placed on the D.P.P's shoulders and that one wants to minimise them if possible. I do not know if I entirely agree that one must resist this because the powers are intolerable. In some cases chief constables have a discretion about whether or not they prosecute, and everyone recognises that this is sensible. There are certain offences where it is not in any way unreasonable that the D.P.P. should consider whether or not he wants to prosecute. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) that one is likely to see a large number of cases where the D.P.P. will be consulted. Prosecutions for this sort of offence—accessory after the fact—have been extremely rare in cases of husband and wife. With the safeguards and in the circumstances that must exist, and which I outlined earlier, I do not expect that one would find frequent cases where the Director would have to be consulted.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Grieve: In an endeavour to protect the special position we have been considering, is it not the fact that by Clause 4(4) all charges of having been an accessory would have to be referred to the D.P.P.? That was my point, and I hope that I was right in making it.

Mr. Taverne: Yes, I must confess that that is so. But there must still be cases where there has been no reasonable excuse, no lawful authority; where there has been an arrestable offence, and some one knows or believes the person concerned to be guilty. Such cases will be pretty rare. It is not one of the major burdens one is placing on the shoulders of the Director. There are, of course, other cases where that is a most serious consideration.
If one cannot simply say what the circumstances are in which wives should be exempt, one faces the further difficulty of exempting certain relationships and not others. That was implicit in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull, because he was speaking to a different Amendment. The Amendment we are considering suggests that a parent should be exempt, and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that if a father and son were engaged in serious crime one would not wish to see them


exempt from being accessories. He was therefore not speaking to this Amendment.
It is a natural difficulty that is bound to arise. The Greeks, as the hon. and learned Gentleman told us, exempted all familiars—

Mr. Grieve: I thought that a familiar was something that sat on one's shoulder.

Mr. Taverne: They exempted a large number of different relationships. If one exempts a father and son, what about brother and sister? It is extremely difficult to draw the line, and it seemed to be the wish in the Committee to restrict the exemption to husband and wife only.
As I say, I regret that I have not been able to find a limited set of circumstances in which it would be possible to make a clear exemption and avoid reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In a sense, we regard this present provision as a second best, because the ideal is, unfortunately, unobtainable, as we see it.

Sir D. Renton: If I may say so, I have been extremely interested in the Under-Secretary's speech, and I fully appreciate the difficulties he has mentioned. It is so often assumed that legislation is easy; that we can find a form of words for every situation that is likely to arise in practice. Speaking only for myself—I cannot speak for my hon. and learned Friends—I appreciate his point about the difficulty of finding an alternative form of words to those in subsection (4). I regard that difficulty as a very interesting and telling example of the limits of legislation. I sometimes think that we would be better as Parliamentarians, as legislators, not to pretend too easily that we can legislate for every single thing that people think of from time to time.
As I say, I fully appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but he was on very unsure foundations when he argued, I thought a bit cursorily, about bringing in the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have a quite extraordinary situation here. It is not only the administrative burden, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) referred, that is increasingly falling on the Director's office. It is not only the interference

with the basic liberty of the subject—that is the opportunity to prosecute to see that our criminal laws are enforced. It is that the grounds, the reasons, put forward for bringing in the Director of Public Prosecutions and making his consent necessary are now being widened in the most extraordinary way.
Originally, as I understand it, the Director's consent was required by Parliament, but there was danger of frivolous prosecution, of malicious prosecution and of unreasonable prosecution. Also, in some cases, the Director's consent was required because there was particular public interest, an interest of the State, and it was therefore right to ensure that the prosecution should be handled by an official of the State or, at any rate, that the prosecution should have his blessing and, therefore, his consent. But none of those things applies here. There is not likely to be malicious, frivolous or unreasonable prosecution. The interests of the State are no more involved in an important way here than in any prosecution of house breaking.
What, therefore, is the reason put forward? As I understand it, the reason as expressed by the Under-Secretary is: "There has been great difficulty over the drafting of subsection (1) of Clause 4. Therefore, let us confess that it is a very difficult matter, and in case anything goes wrong let us add a safeguard in the form of no prosecution except with the consent of the Director." With great respect—and I do respect the thought that the Under-Secretary has given to this point—that is not a good enough reason for adding to the burdens of the Director.
I do not know whether, bearing in mind the fact that we are now pushed right up against the end of the Parliamentary timetable, there is any method at all of adjusting this matter, but I think that my hon. and learned Friends are right to insist, as they have done, that in cases like this the consent of the Director is unnecessary and, in my opinion, it is a regrettable and unwise extension of his powers.

Mr. Percival: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who has deployed all the arguments with such care


and cogency, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), and I echo the unhappiness and unease they have expressed about the replies we have been given. We regard this provision as unsatisfactory, and hope that the Under-Secretary will have another look at it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12.—(COMMENCEMENT, SAVINGS, AND OTHER GENERAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendrient No. 8, in page 8, line 8, to leave cut '29th August, 1967' and to insert '1st January, 1968'.
This Amendment need not take long. Its purpose is simply to postpone the date of operation of the Bill. The Bill took slightly longer in Committee than we anticipated, and it is not now thought that a date of operation as early as 29th August would allow the courts or practitioners time enough to absorb its changes. Many practitioners rely on the special supplement to Archibold, and it quite clearly would not be possible to produce that in time.
It has, therefore, been thought desirable to defer the date to such time as there is a minimum of current business, and we thought that 1st January, 1968 would be suitable.

Mr. Percival: I fully understand the reason for this Amendment, and it is a good reason. Practitioners will have quite a lot to absorb, and it is very right that they should have the opportunity to do so. I want to express one hope. We had a discussion in Committee on subsections (4) and (7) of Clause 4, and the link with this Amendment is that that Clause might be overtaken by the Theft Bill. One would then have, first of all, the change in the law made by Clause 4(7) and then another change made by the Theft Bill.
I hope that this extension of time may enable us to have just the one change; that if the Theft Bill comes in before then it will result in just one change, and we can then move straight from the unsatisfactory state of the law now to the law as it will finally be. That may be an advantage that will be secured by this postponement of the date.

Mr. Taverne: Although we hope to introduce the Theft Bill at a fairly early stage, it is doubtful whether it will be law in time to enable the course the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests to be adopted.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(SUPPLEMENTARY AMEND MENTS.)

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 15, line 12, after 'property' to insert:
'but did not include loss or damage due to an accident arising out of the presence of a motor vehicle on a road'.
The Amendment arises from an Amendment which was tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), the object of which was to restrict the powers of magistrates' courts to award compensation. What the hon. Gentleman probably had in mind was that magistrates' courts should not be concerned with claims of contributory negligence in motor accident cases. As I said in Committee, this seemed to me to be an eminently sensible Amendment, if that was the aim, though we did not necessarily accept the form of the Amendment.
There have been many criticisms of the possibility of magistrates' courts awarding compensation and dealing with difficult questions of fact on contributory negligence, which might take a lot of time. There seems to me to be substance in these criticisms. The only difference from the general approach shown by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet is that in effect we suggest that no court, the higher courts no more than the lower courts, should, in dealing with criminal cases, consider the question of contributory negligence.
If we merely excluded magistrates' courts from doing so, it might be thought that we were giving the power specifically to higher courts and excluding magistrates' courts and, therefore, the higher courts would be expected to use the power. In any event, cross-examination might well be directed to the point, whether or not the judge decided to deal with it. It is, therefore, desirable to stop criminal cases from becoming trials about contributory negligence.

Mr. Percival: We fully subscribe to the objective. The point was raised by the motoring associations, amongst other bodies, which were worried that a criminal trial might develop into a very unsatisfactory civil trial, as indeed it might. Although it is desirable to change the law to secure the objective just mentioned, care must be taken to ensure that we do not go too far.
An offence which is very common at present is for someone to take and drive away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent and, either accidentally or deliberately, to drive it in such a way as to damage it. Regrettably, it is not uncommon for somebody to take away a car without the owner's consent, drive it to an outlandish spot, and strip the windows or wireless out, and so on.
I find it not at all easy to apply the wording here. I appreciate the draftsman's difficulty here, because something has to be read as though it includes one thing and not something else. The wording of the Amendment refers to any loss
arising out of the presence of a motor vehicle on a road".
This language presumably was deliberately drawn widely so as to catch all the kinds of cases which we want to catch.
Might not the wording be so wide as to exclude even the kind of case to which I have referred? Does not the Under-Secretary agree that, in the kind of case to which I have referred, not only is it desirable in the interests of the owner of the vehicle, but it is a very useful power for the court to have, to make the criminals pay some sum within these modest brackets?

Mr. Taverne: This is a novel point. I would like to take more time to consider that question. These are interim provisions. The question of reparation has to be considered in a much wider context and as part of the whole new approach to the penal treatment of offenders and of dealing with crime. I do not foresee that a tremendous amount of use will be made of a Schedule 2 award in the kind of cases which are mentioned. I have not examined the question whether someone who takes and drives away a car and damages it is then prevented from paying compensation. I should rather doubt it, but it is

a matter on which I do not want to give an opinion on the spur of the moment.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's recommendation, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not take the view that the Bill makes any major changes, but it is a very useful Bill. First, it simplifies the law in a field where confusion and uncertainty have often been caused because of the intricate distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. That distinction will no longer plague future students of the law, or even practitioners. Secondly, the Bill reduces the number of crimes, which is not the case with every Bill.
I wish to express my appreciation, and that of the Government, to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which produced the Report on Felonies and Misdemeanours, and also for the other Reports which have led to the further changes made by the Bill.
Lastly, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Southport for the way in which he has presented the case on Report.

2.17 p.m.

Mr. Percival: I am greatly obliged to the Under-Secretary for his closing comments. I echo his penultimate remarks. Almost everyone who has spoke during the proceedings on the Bill has begun by paying tribute to the members of the Committee and those who did some work on the basis of the work done by those members. I agree that it is appropriate to mark the conclusion of the Bill by repeating that tribute.
We on this side have always taken the view that this is a thoroughly worth-while Measure. We have always taken the view, however—this is where we have disagreed with the Government, though not in any spirit of bitter controversy; it has been, rather, a simply difference of opinion—that there was no disrespect in suggesting that the Committee might not always have been right. We have suggested that what the Committee did was to provide us with a basis on which to work. In some respects, the Committee was limited


in its terms of reference, so it could not have done some of the things we have discussed.
On this basis we attempted at various stages to make changes in the Bill. On Second Reading we raised many points of detail, which we pursued in Committee. We regret the fact that it has not been possible to make any concessions on any of these points. The only relevance of this at the moment is that we think that the Bill is poorer because some of the things we asked for could not be conceded.
Today, in the Clauses and Amendments we have moved, we have had an opportunity to have very useful discussions in which everyone, except the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, has been able to express very useful views, tough I do not suggest that it was beyond the Parliamentary Private Secretary's competence.
There is still one important part of the Bill about which not a word has been said today and on which I want to say a few words. We made it clear in Committee that we were far from happy about what is being provided in respect of alternative verdicts. I shall not go into detail; it is the principle about which I want to express concern on this the list opportunity of doing so.
As to the Committee's recommendations, although principles thus far have teen quite clear, there were two cases. One was that a statute prescribing an offence would provide that a person who was not found guilty of that offence night be found guilty of something else. That was one case in which there could be an alternative verdict. The other case was quite simple—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that on Third Reading we cannot discuss anything that is not in the Bill.

Mr. Percival: I am discussing what is in the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can only say why I think it is wrong by reference to the changes which it effects. This is merely a two-stage, short argument. The Bill is bad because it substitutes for what we have now something which is not as satisfactory. It would not

be unfair to the House to try to put the second part of the argument, much as I wish to save time and get home to some food and sleep.
Secondly, if it were not for what is in the Bill, the position would be that in addition to the instance which I have given, a person charged with a felony consisting of, say, four ingredients might be convicted of another felony which consisted of three of those same ingredients. One always knew when a person was charged with a felony that if there were four ingredients and one of them was not proved but the other three amounted to another felony, that could be the alternative verdict. Likewise with misdemeanour. The one doubt was whether a person charged with felony could be convicted of misdemeanour the ingredients of which were contained in the ingredients of felony. As I understood its Report, that was why the Committee felt that something should be done about it. It would not be satisfactory simply to leave it alone.
Therefore, the Committee's recommendation and intention appears to have been to preserve the first kind of alternative verdict and, at the same time, to make alterations in the statutory alternatives then existing, particularly in relation to sexual offences. That was one limb of the Committee's expressed intention. The other was to ensure that no difficulty ensued on the abolition of felony because of the doubt whether a person could be convicted of a misdemeanour when the ingredients were the same as of a felony.
From reading the Committee's Report, as I have done many times, it appeared that that was what the Committee intended to recommend and to do. My complaint with the contents of the Bill is that the provisions relating to alternative verdicts go, we believe, much further and introduce wholly new principles on which it is to be decided whether there may be a finding of guilt on an alternative offence.
We are not happy about the position from two points of view. First, the only reason that we can see for giving this wider variety of alternatives is to strengthen the hand of the prosecution so that if it has made a mistake it will not be caught with it, and that if any offence turns up which is within the wide


terms of the allegations in the indictment, the person may be convicted nevertheless.
We regard that as a wrong approach. In addition, for the reasons which we have dealt with in detail, it appears to us that that is unfair to judge, jury and accused. It is unfair to the judge by placing upon him the burden, very difficult to discharge, of deciding upon how many alternatives he has to direct the jury. In Committee, we spoke of a case in which there might have been 14 alternative verdicts. It is not fair on the judge to land him with that. In addition, it may defeat its own object, because if there were 14 alternatives and the judge directed on only 12, that would be grounds for appeal.
We do not think it fair to juries, because they have a difficult task already. If they have simply one charge on the indictment and have to remember that there are 13 other possibilities, it is too difficult. It is not fair on the accused, because he should be able to see clearly before the trial starts the offence of which he is at risk of being convicted.
We suggest that there is here an issue of principle. We must remember that a man on trial is innocent until he is proved guilty. The whole purpose of a criminal trial until after the conviction is to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. That is the sole function of the judge at a trial.
It is not the judge's duty to assist the prosecution in any way. On the contrary, it is for the prosecution to prosecute and to secure conviction. The judge is there, and there is the whole of the court rules, to ensure that the man gets a fair trial. It is contrary to that principle to widen the scope of alternative verdicts for the purpose of assisting the prosecution if it has made a mistake.
I accept that it is too late to do anything about it now. Once again, the only protection for the citizen against too wide a use of these powers will lie in the hands of judges and juries. So long as it is fully recognised, and I am sure that it is, in the courts that that is the function of judges and juries, it may be that no serious consequences will arise.
One danger is that the prosecution, if it wanted to cover itself, could put everything which it could think of in the particulars remotely connected with the

offence and then hope that if its primary line of prosecution went wrong, it could pick up on one or two of the other offences expressly or impliedly included in the particulars. That is why it goes much further.
I hope that the Home Office and the Under-Secretary—I hope that the information has been passed on—realise that the practising members of the professions, and many of the judges, are not at all happy about this. They feel that it may be going too wide.
The only remaining safeguard is that the judges are there to protect the man on trial. We can safely leave it to them, but we on this side feel that we must be careful not to keep putting on the judges further duties which make their task that much more difficult.
We do not like these widened powers concerning alternative verdicts because it is a departure from what we had thought to be an important matter of principle, namely that the prosecution has to decide what it is charging a man with so that he knows what he has to meet. Only within certain narrow and well-defined limits should there be findings of alternative verdicts. The reason for doing what is sought to be done here appears to us to be that the prosecution may make a mistake. We do not think that is a sufficient reason for a departure from principle which casts an additional burden on judge, jury and accused That is the one point of principle arising on the Bill which I want to stress again for this reason. We are told, and we accept, that the whole of the criminal law is under review, that it is going to be thoroughly reviewed in the immediate future with a view to codifying it. We think that is a thoroughly desirable thing to do.

Mr. Taverne: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? To put the record straight, may I make it clear, as I did in Committee, that it is not the purpose of the Bill to make prosecution easier and to help the police through these provisions. In fact, it is strongly contested that there will be any greater difficulty for defendants by way of alternative verdicts than under the present law.

Mr. Percival: Of course, I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. Perhap I am not expressing myself with complete accuracy. Whether it is intended


or not, this is what we think will be the effect of it. We understand that the whole of these matters are going to be under review. For that reason we think it worth putting forward these views again at this stage in the hope that what we are now talking about and what has been said at all stages will be considered as part of the review.
Subject to that, we generally wish the B 11 well and we wish well to those who have got to understand it in order to put it into practice.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: I should like to say a few words as we run into the 25th hour of this sitting. If the Bill deserves to be commended for any reason, it deserves commendation for Clause 1(1), which abolishes the distinction between felony and misdemeanour. Many years ago—too many years ago—I spent many hours trying to understand the difference between felonies and misdemeanours. I simply wish to say that if all those years ago I had thought that on Bastille Day, 1967, I would be present at the demise of the difference between felonies and misdemeanours, life would have been a lot happier.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BETTERMENT LEVY (MINERALS)

2.33 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move,
That the Betterment Levy (Minerals) (No. 2) Regulations 1967, dated 22nd June 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
I am sure these Regulations will be generally welcomed, particularly by the h3n. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
The principal Regulations which these Regulations amend provide a wide measure of exemption from levy for mineral development. Broadly speaking, the new Regulations provide that, where the disposition is made by a landowner disposing of minerals, that is liable to levy, but that the development by the mineral

undertaker is not so liable. Under the main regulations, the exemption does not apply where the mineral undertaker obtained the land from a connected person—that is, from another member of a group of companies of which the undertaker himself is a member.
Since we approved the principal regulations we have had representations from the Confederation of British Industries on behalf of the mineral undertakers, and they suggested that all transactions between groups of companies should be qualifying dispositions so as to attract exemption from levy. We have met this request, subject to two qualifications. The first qualification is that the companies concerned must all have been members of the same group on 23rd September, 1965—the date of the White Paper—and, secondly, that the member of the group of companies which is the holding company which sells to the operating company must itself have acquired the interest either before the appointed day or as a result of a notifiable chargeable act or event which would have been liable to levy.
We have made these qualifications to prevent the possibility of avoidance of levy. In other words, the safeguard that we provide is that the first company, usually the holding company must have got its interest as a result of the transaction upon which levy has been paid.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for introducing these Regulations briefly to the House and for not trying to arouse the approval of the crowded benches behind him or provoke the crowded benches behind me. This time we do not expect to do that sort of thing.
We are on what I might call the second round of these Land Commission Regulations. The first 30 or so Regulations were rushed out just before the Act became operative. Now the inevitable errors and omissions have resulted from that mad rush, when the right hon. Gentleman was so keen on getting his Bill operative.
These Regulations deal with betterment levy on minerals. This was a subject which had been thoroughly badly handled throughout the passage of this


Bill. Section 74, under which these Regulations are made, was one of the latecomers in the Bill. At every stage of the Bill the subject of minerals was debated and the Government had plenty of time to make up their minds, but only at a very late stage did Section 74 come into the Bill, and then everything was left to Regulations. Therefore, when the Bill was rushed on to the Statute Book we had no clue whatever about the right hon. Gentleman's intentions as to betterment levy on minerals.
Then we had the Regulations laid before Parliament only one month before the appointed day, and it is those Regulations which we are now amending. I notice that those Regulations which we are now amending, under a large block type heading "Modification of the Land Commission Act, 1967", bravely tried to set out a substitute for Section 74 of the Act as a sort of mineral levy code stretching over no fewer than seven pages of print. Then they could not get it right.
The Regulations which we are now amending describe the chargeable acts or events in relation to a mining lease—and only a lease, because betterment levy applies to a conveyance of the freehold in minerals—as follows: a lease as being Case B, the assignment of the lease as being Case A, and mineral development as Case C. The Regulations made certain exemptions, and it is to those exemptions which the amending Regulations seek to add.
The original parent Regulations give two exemptions. First, if a developing owner who is a mineral undertaker and was such on 22nd September, 1965, carries out a mineral development on land which he had on 23rd September, 1965, and before next October, gives notice to the Land Commission, he gets exemption from betterment levy.
It is, perhaps, the second exemption with which we are particularly concerned in the present Regulations, the exemption which applies if at any time the developer is an owner of an assessable interest and carries out a mineral development on land which he had acquired by a qualifying disposition or is under contract to acquire that assessable interest, that contract not being made with a connected person.
We have become used to these invented terms under the Land Commission Act and its Statutory Instruments—qualifying disposition, connected person, and so on—but in this connection there is one of the finest jigsaw passages of cross-reference ever devised. For "connected person" one has to go to Schedule 13 paragraph 5 of the Act, and then to sub-paragraph (5,a), where one finds that each member of a group is a connected person. Schedule 13 paragraph 1(b) defines a group as the principal company and its subsidiaries All right hon. and hon. Members no doubt, know the definition of "subsidiary", or, if they do not, they have to go to another Act as old as the Finance Act, 1938 to find out.
Thus, if one member of a group of companies acquired a mining lease from another company in the group, under the Regulations as they were rushed through at the time when the Act became operative, that company would not get exemption. The amending Regulations now before the House would give that exemption, but only in certain circumstances. All this ought to have been covered in the Act. The matters raised in the parent Regulations and these amending Regulations ought to have been thought out before the Bill became law.
I do not know whether I am right in understanding the intention behind the amending regulations. As I understand, the mineral development which is relieved from betterment levy is still material development for all other purposes, for example, for the purpose of compulsory purchase by the Land Commission. If the Land Commission thought that land was suitable for development for mining purposes, that could justify a compulsory purchase order by the Commission.
The most important point on these amending Regulations is that, after all the effort, they do not deal with the one outstanding question. They do not cover the mineral undertaker who owned his land on 23rd September, 1965, and later sold it to a subsidiary. This is how I understand it—though I may be wrong—having read and re-read the Regulations many times. What we are talking about here is the established mineral company, defined as a company which


was mining or carrying out mining developments on 23rd September, 1965, a company which was a mineral undertaker on what we have come to know as White Paper day. Such a company acquired its land by a disposition from an associated company. It bought its land from an associated company. Under the Regulations, the associated company must have acquired the land by a qualifying disposition, so we go back one further step.
We have then to find out what would be the qualifying disposition by which the vendor associated company acquired its land. We find that that qualifying disposition must have happened on or after 23rd September, 1965. Therefore, I think that I am right in saying that, if a company held its mining land before White Paper day and then sold it to its associated company afterwards, the associated company would not get the benefit of the exemption. This seems rather peculiar. One would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to wish to protect transactions which happened before White Paper day, before everyone knew his intentions regarding betterment levy, and not those afterwards by which people might try to escape betterment levy.
We are here presented with the second round of Land Commission Regulations amending those which were brought out earlier, but, even now, after three months to think about them, the Government have not got them right.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Betterment Levy (Minerals) (No. 2) Regulations 1967, dated 22nd June, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

Betterment Levy (Minerals) (Scotland) No. 2) Regulations 1967, daed 2nd June, 1967, [copy laid before the House 28th June], approved.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

2.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move,
That the Material Development (No. 2) Regulations 1967, dated 22nd June, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
I believe that these Regulations will be equally welcome to the House, although they may invoke critical comment from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). They extend the scope of exemption from levy. Incidentally, these Regulations also affect the Commission's power to acquire land—a point raised by the hon. Gentleman when he referred a few minutes earlier to material development.
The exemption from levy is extended in two ways. The first—I hope that we shall not be criticised for this—comes in response to a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) when we discussed the principal Regulations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that, as we had followed the General Development Order here, the various forms of industrial development which are defined as nonmaterial development and, therefore, exempt from levy, gained that exemption only when they fell within the definition under the General Development Order. In other words, extensions or alterations gained exemption where no industrial development certificate was required.
The effect of following precisely the precedent of the General Development Order was that, if an industrial development certificate were required, the development was material development. In that way, as a result of following precedent, we created anomalies because industrial development certificates are required for different areas of building in different parts of the country. We recognise that it is inappropriate to follow the precedent in this respect and that for levy purposes there should be equal and uniform treatment. Therefore, the first effect of these amending Regulations is to remove the reference to industrial development certificates.
The second extension of exemption from levy is made for a similar reason.


I refer here to the exemption in respect of caravan sites—I think that it is paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the main Regulations—where, by following the General Development Order, we made the exemption subject to two conditions, each imposed for planning purposes. One of these conditions in the original Regulations was recognised as inappropriate. It is clear that both are equally inappropriate and should be excluded. The second effect of the present Regulations is to do that, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Graham Page: I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, the next Motion:
That the Material Development (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1967, dated 22nd June 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the House agrees, so be it.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I should like to refer to that one also, because they are a little different, but I shall come to that in a minute.
Here again, we are on the second round of Land Commission Orders and amending those which came out at the time of the Act. It will become more and more difficult to ascertain what is material development. This is a vital point to the public, not just lawyers, surveyors and valuers but the public, because once one starts a material development it attracts betterment levy immediately. There are many fiddling things with regard to material development. If one sticks a flagpole straight up on one's house that is not material development, but if one sticks it vertically out of the window it is material development.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss material development in general on these Regulations.

Mr. Graham Page: I will not develop that any further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it shows that we need the definitions of material development all at one point where the ordinary layman can find them.
In the Regulations we are amending not only a parent Order but the Act itself. We start off with definitions of material

development in Clause 99 of the Act, and then the parent Regulations to those now before us define what is not material development, which rather confuses the issue, there being a positive definition in the Act and a negative one in the Regulations.
There are two objectives of the amending Regulations. First, in Article 2 of the Regulations, paragraph 7(2,d) of the parent Regulations is amended. Under the parent Regulation the development by an industrial undertaker is not material development if it is an extension or alteration of buildings of not more than 5,000 ft., but it would be material development under the original Regulations if a Board of Trade certificate were necessary under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
I think that the practical point here—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—is that under the Town and Country Planning Act the industrial development certificate required is cumulative from as long ago as 1960, and it may be that this year an industrial concern wishes to expand by only 1,000 ft., and that is cumulative if it is developed on a previous 5,000 ft. which would need a certificate. So far as the Land Commission Act is concerned the basic date is 6th April, 1967, and one must calculate the 5,000 ft. from that date. I think that that is the practical purpose of the Amendment and to that extent it is of value, but it is not easy to understand because we are working with at least two or three negatives in it.
The second point of the Amendment comes under Article 3. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can get away with this as easily as he tried to do. Whether it was a misprint or not in the English Regulations I do not know, but it was a very important misprint. The English Regulations deal with caravan sites, and a caravan site which involved new access or widened access to a road would have been material development by reason of leaving out a 1 or a 2—I cannot remember which it was. But under the amending Regulations the caravan site need not be material development just because one is widening the access to it.
Scotland got it right, but, unfortunately, it put brackets round these figures when


the brackets ought not to have been there. On one occasion in dealing with a consolidation Bill I was teased by Mr. Speaker for saying that the bracket was in the wrong place. He thought I was being pedantic about the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that what Mr. Speaker said in that regard was correct.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that Mr. S maker was correct. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I was being pedantic then, here is the right hon. Gentleman representing Scotland being super-pedantic: in bringing forward a solemn Statutory Instrument to correct those brackets. That is all that is happening in three paragraphs of the Scottish Order. Brackets were put round 1 and 2, and we have to have a Statutory Instrument to remove them. This goes to show again how these Orders were originally rushed through and insufficient time was given to consider them.
It will cause great confusion to the public to have to refer not only to the Land Commission Act for material development but also to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, the first of these material development Regulations, and now the amending one. I hope that the

right hon. Gentleman will consider putting the definition of material development in one place in some form.
Finally, I point out that the concession of extending the definition of material development may look like a gift to the developer. We are saying here that "This and that are not material development. You are, therefore, being let off betterment levy." But it is being put into current use value, and, therefore, the developer is being let off betterment levy but is paying Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to present it as a gift, because it is merely a change in tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Material Development (No. 2) Regulations 1967, dated 22nd June 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

Material Development (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1967, dated 22nd June 1967 [copy laid before the House, 28th June], approved.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock p.m. till Monday next.